-
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
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Mr Rogers.
Isn't he that guy who was obscured by a tree in that creepy video with his wife and kids?
speculawyer
Member
You know what is weird . . . I just realized that I am an 'anchor baby'! My parents were legal residents but they were not US citizens. It never even occurred to me until now.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Out out out!
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Is Warren even going to make an endorsement in this primary? She is not a kingmaker so I wonder what effect it would ultimately have.
We need one heck of a title change...
Frank the Great
Banned
speculawyer
Member
I'm like a reverse anchor baby. I wasn't born in the U.S., but since at least one of my parents are citizens I was born a natural citizen.
Like Obama!
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
If we're being honest I'd be happy with th entire dem field. My personal ranking from one at best case to holy shit apacolypse:
1. Obama 3rd term
2. Biden
3. Bernie
4. Warren
5. O'Malley/random dem
6. Trump
7. Jeb!
8-infinity: the GOP field
1. Obama 3rd term
2. Biden
3. Bernie
4. Warren
5. O'Malley/random dem
6. Trump
7. Jeb!
8-infinity: the GOP field
RastaMentality
Banned
Remember when we were laughing at trump supposedly paying people to stand in his announcement crowd.
there is just so much to unpack in this perfect photo:
Trump getting 90% of the blonde voters.
Coriolanus
Banned
You'd take O'Malley, Trump and the Reps over Hills? Yeesh.
I feel like now you're mostly wanting to have an argument about exactly what Thomson meant, and you're taking earlier posts as being purely about only the very first statement of an analogy in the introductory section of a paper almost no one's read. But, like, this started with someone gesturing at an analogy about "a world class pianist". I chimed in to say that the apparent unfairness of making someone support someone whose condition they're not at all responsible for is a big part of why people who say that fetuses are persons and think abortion is generally wrong are often okay with rape exemptions. In that first post I already suggested modifying the analogy to more closely resemble how pro-lifers see more typical abortions. I've not been trying to argue - and I think I've been clear that I've not been trying to argue - that Thomson understands her argument as being basically about self-defense (in her sense). In the post you're replying to I try to set aside Thomson's indecent/impermissible distinction, because I'm not interested in exactly how she'd argue the position and because I think that's not a distinction that's likely to be relevant to most people. Yes, clearly she wants "you ought to do" to be distinct from "they have a right to have you do". I don't think it's terribly important to hash out here whether that's true, and so in my post I noted that she made a move like this and then I passed over it. I mean, Thomson's name didn't even come up until after I said that the analogy helps motivate a sort of self-defense argument for abortion, and my initial use of "self-defense" was, I think, clearly not limited just to protecting oneself from mortal danger. I agree with you on a lot of what you're saying here about what Thomson meant, but I think you've misinterpreted me as trying to just interpret Thomson from the beginning.
But to get back to where I think we really disagree, about the usefulness of simple thought experiments, I feel like your alternative is very unlikely to lead to useful discussion just because it's so bound up with all these weird little details. You want to ask pro-lifers if they think a miscarriage is manslaughter. This is very likely to lead to a long and irrelevant digression about manslaughter or about to what extent miscarriages are made more or less likely because of decisions the mother makes. No one cares about this at all. Or let's say that you do get to your discussion about killing vs letting die. This can be interesting but it doesn't seem likely to help resolve the initial disagreement. I feel like what you're asking for is the sort of argument we got in this thread a whole bunch of times between Metaphoreus and everyone else in the lead-up to the Obamacare decision. I think if you start interrogating a pro-lifer about prison sentences they're going to (rightly) take you as trying to distract from the fundamental moral question. Or you're going to get into another long digression about exactly the rates and dangers of back-alley abortions that no one involved is actually qualified to discuss.
You suggest real-life parallels instead of fantastic thought experiments, but this seems to me to offer the worst of both worlds. With kidney donation you're both appealing to a potentially very different scenario that doesn't map to abortion and you're cluttering it up with a bunch of details that are just going to confuse the issue. I don't actually like certain kinds of weird thought experiments, but I think the important way that thought experiments can be weird is psychological. Like, trolley problems often don't work too well because the case we're supposed to imagine is hard to conceive of. How do we know that only the fat guy can stop the trolley? The Ticking Time Bomb thing is really problematic because it's hard to keep in mind that we've only assumed for the sake of the thought experiment that we somehow know that torture and only torture will produce answers. However, I think we're actually quite good at moral reasoning in fantastic scenarios, as long as it's easy for us to conceive of them. There's a bunch of allegorical science fiction that basically operates on this principle, right?
I think it's missing the point to ask "If we change the setup of the analogy to one in which you are directly responsible for the violinist's predicament, does that not change our moral/ethical calculus?" Yes! That's part of why this kind of thought experiment is so valuable. Like I said, the point is to get at what principles are right and which details are relevant. If it seems to you that the thought experiment fails to capture some relevant feature of the real case, then you can adjust the thought experiment. Thomson's adjusting the thought experiment throughout that paper to try to better answer possible objections someone might make. This process helps people figure out what it is they actually think is morally relevant. The idea here is not to put forward an analogy that tricks people into agreeing with you. The idea is to put forward an analogy that captures what you think is morally relevant about the actual problem. Then people who disagree can suggest ways that they think the analogy fails. You can adjust the analogy to include these other relevant features and show that nevertheless they're committed to your position, and so on. This mode of argument is going to very quickly reveal where the fundamental disagreements are so that they can be addressed.
I think the Biden we'll see this time around, if we do see him, will be pretty far to the left of the Biden we saw in 2008. I'd love to see Warren though, gimme that Biden/Warren ticket.
I'd like a Biden vs Hillary 1v1 race. The winner is the true heir to Obama's legacy.
speculawyer
Member
It worked for George HW Bush.
I'm cross-posting this from a Trump thread in OT. George Will trying to prevent GOP disaster.
---
When George Will is making sense, it stands-out in my mind.
He's seeing the same thing we're seeing. I kinda like it when this comes from unexpected sources; it reassures me that I'm not stuck in my bubble of liberal perspectives.
And WOW at that Holocaust reference.
Meanwhile, the reactions over at FreeRepublic are very predictable..
---
When George Will is making sense, it stands-out in my mind.
He's seeing the same thing we're seeing. I kinda like it when this comes from unexpected sources; it reassures me that I'm not stuck in my bubble of liberal perspectives.
And WOW at that Holocaust reference.
Meanwhile, the reactions over at FreeRepublic are very predictable..
Well, you know, except for the fact it's really a photo of Jeb! with his hand in the shadow of the person standing next to him.
Rhomega Beta
Member
I don't want to pay my taxes either. Can I not pay them too? Better yet, no taxes for anyone!
Abinash117
Member
Based on that it looks like Hillary already won has a huge advantage over any dem candidate.
It makes me wonder why Biden is seeking a run; it doesn't make sense considering just looking through her endorsements. Unless some already announced endorsements are going change their mind and go with Biden, it doesn't seem like a good idea.
speculawyer
Member
You should run in the GOP primary.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Trump's next hat trick should be a taxes/economy plan. The party is so invested in tax cut ideology that there's not much he could propose that they wouldn't have to cosign.
In terms of George Will...it's not surprising. He has always been an establishment voice. Same with Jennifer Rubin. The establishment is appalled by Trump, in part because his dominance really makes all that "deepest pool of candidates of all time" shit sound even more laughable. Trump has silenced conservative and moderate candidates alike.
Seems like his liberal past doesn't matter, which proves me wrong. I'd imagine GOP operatives are looking for a way to torpedo him without it being an obvious hit job. Based on his behavior and recent success I'm starting to believe he isn't bullshitting about a third party run (if the GOP fucks him over).
Still sticking to my prediction that he doesn't win one contest though. There's no way things look the same in four months.
In terms of George Will...it's not surprising. He has always been an establishment voice. Same with Jennifer Rubin. The establishment is appalled by Trump, in part because his dominance really makes all that "deepest pool of candidates of all time" shit sound even more laughable. Trump has silenced conservative and moderate candidates alike.
Seems like his liberal past doesn't matter, which proves me wrong. I'd imagine GOP operatives are looking for a way to torpedo him without it being an obvious hit job. Based on his behavior and recent success I'm starting to believe he isn't bullshitting about a third party run (if the GOP fucks him over).
Still sticking to my prediction that he doesn't win one contest though. There's no way things look the same in four months.
speculawyer
Member
I don't think that invisible primary theory applies well to the current GOP primary race for a couple reasons:
1) There are few big people to make GOP endorsements. Every GOP president is dead except George HW Bush and George W Bush. Them endorsing their son/brother is not very persuasive. Especially since HW is the 1-term 'read my lips' guy and W is even more toxic. 14 of the other big GOPers who could make endorsements are in the race themselves. And does anyone really give a fuck as to what Boehner or Mitch McConnell think?
2) There is a huge anti-establishment even anti-politician vibe going this year. 3 of the current high polling candidates are Trump (#1), Carson (#2), and Fiorina (in the pack but with respectable numbers). All three are non politicians that have never held office. Apparently being a politician hurts you so why would endorsements from politicians matter?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
What a bizarre comparison to 9/11 Man (Rudy), that seems like a major rewrite of history. I thought Giuliani was the favorite heading into the nomination process? Everyone knows that Trump was pro-choice, is super rude, doesn't relate well to people, was married three times, etc. People already know all of this (Fox News made sure of it in the first debate)... And they don't care.
Trump needs to get a massive chunk of the Cruz, Carson, Fiorina voters to get his numbers where they need to be, but that's a real possibility.
PhoenixDark
Banned
edit: wrong thread
By establishment voice you mean that he's been on a "5 minutes hate" of democrats for the last 10 years.
The last 10 years he's basically not been able to endorse the Republican platform, but, still says that despite how dumb the Republican platform is. Democrats are even worse... because reasons.
I hate myself for responding to PD.
I agree with the people theorizing that Biden is just positioning himself in case something happens that forces Hillary to drop out -- either something actually bad comes out of the emails, or health stuff. Biden can't beat Hillary, but he has at least a 50/50 against Sanders (O'Malley basically isn't in the race any more).
Reposted from the Trump thread. I hope it happens. Don't let us down Trump. Aaron work some of your optimistic magic on The Donald.
Coriolanus
Banned
Step 1. Don't collect taxes.
Step 2. Stop tracking government deficit.
Step 3. By the fires of hyperinflation be purged.
ErasureAcer
Banned
So where are these 30,000 Trump supporters in this picture?
![pUuV2cO.png](http://i.imgur.com/pUuV2cO.png"]http://i.imgur.com/pUuV2cO.png)
If you combine Bernie's 19,000 inside that arena(The Moda center from Portland, many more outside to get to Bernie at 28k there) with Trump's marginal crowd in Alabama...you might be getting close to 30,000.
Cheebs since you're such a genius tell me where these 30,000 Trump supporters are?
Your complaint from before in this thread or another was about Arizona where Trump said he had 15,000 in a venue that only held 4200 in Phoenix, Arizona(I highly doubt there were 10,000 waiting outside or anywhere close). Seems he likes to inflate his numbers by 300%. That picture from Mobile is 10k at most.
If you combine Bernie's 19,000 inside that arena(The Moda center from Portland, many more outside to get to Bernie at 28k there) with Trump's marginal crowd in Alabama...you might be getting close to 30,000.
Cheebs since you're such a genius tell me where these 30,000 Trump supporters are?
Your complaint from before in this thread or another was about Arizona where Trump said he had 15,000 in a venue that only held 4200 in Phoenix, Arizona(I highly doubt there were 10,000 waiting outside or anywhere close). Seems he likes to inflate his numbers by 300%. That picture from Mobile is 10k at most.
So where are these 30,000 Trump supporters in this picture?
If you combine Bernie's 19,000 inside that arena(The Moda center from Portland, many more outside to get to Bernie at 28k there) with Trump's marginal crowd in Alabama...you might be getting close to 30,000.
Cheebs since you're such a genius tell me where these 30,000 Trump supporters are?
Your complaint from before in this thread or another was about Arizona where Trump said he had 15,000 in a venue that only held 4200 in Phoenix, Arizona(I highly doubt there were 10,000 waiting outside or anywhere close). Seems he likes to inflate his numbers by 300%. That picture from Mobile is 10k at most.
Here is my contribution to you both. C R O W D S M E A N N O T H I N G
ErasureAcer
Banned
Coriolanus
Banned
Well, yeah. Who wouldn't?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
But the trains will run on time, and be as luxurious as ever.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Football stadiums are much, much larger than basketball arenas, breh.So where are these 30,000 Trump supporters in this picture?
If you combine Bernie's 19,000 inside that arena(The Moda center from Portland, many more outside to get to Bernie at 28k there) with Trump's marginal crowd in Alabama...you might be getting close to 30,000.
Cheebs since you're such a genius tell me where these 30,000 Trump supporters are?
Your complaint from before in this thread or another was about Arizona where Trump said he had 15,000 in a venue that only held 4200 in Phoenix, Arizona(I highly doubt there were 10,000 waiting outside or anywhere close). Seems he likes to inflate his numbers by 300%. That picture from Mobile is 10k at most.
But I am fairly sure you are just trolling.
ErasureAcer
Banned
All those friends would donate $5 to you if you asked and then you'd have 5,000,000 dollars. And a lot of people looking out for you and would even vote for you for President. Hillary just takes the money and run from her private fundraisers. Hillary is pay to play. She's an internet cafe, not a video game console whatsoever...a bad investment of your money. She doesn't give a damn about the person donating $5. That's why she has a rope line to keep you away from her. Or have we forgotten already? If Bush or any other Republican did this...you would still be talking about it just like Water Boy.
Coriolanus
Banned
You're just fishing for a tag, aren't you?
Retromelon
Member
Don't let hillgaf get you down eraser. Keep fighting the good fight
So where are these 30,000 Trump supporters in this picture?
That stadium seats 43,000. The seats look about half full, plus there's a big group on the field. I could see that being in the neighborhood of 30k.
Ultimately, dick waving over crowd sizes is pointless, especially this early.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked