• 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 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
New CNN poll showing Clinton at +18 after being +10 in the last poll. Is she surging?

Meanwhile, Sanders has gone from 29 to 27 to 24. Clearly losing support to Biden who is now at 22. Melkr wish is coming true.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Carson is apparently doubling down on his anti-Muslim comments.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
It may not be clear but what kind of methodology is Zogby using now? His results the last few elections haven't been much more reliable than throwing darts at a board.
Click to expand...
Ha - I wondered the same thing! Trump doesn't care about Zogby's "special sauce" - he's all about pushing that narrative as long as it's useful. 😋
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
Bam Bam Baklava said:
New CNN poll showing Clinton at +18 after being +10 in the last poll. Is she surging?

Meanwhile, Sanders has gone from 29 to 27 to 24. Clearly losing support to Biden who is now at 22. Melkr wish is coming true.
Click to expand...

Biden 2016. It was my plan all along.

the poll has a 5% margin error. Obviously that means Bernie is at 29 and Clinton at 37. :p
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Ignatz Mouse said:
How is PP profiting at all?

What shareholders are enjoying the dividends or increase in values of their shares?

The whole sting is built on a childish interpretation of reality in the first place.
Click to expand...

"Profit," in this context, means receiving more from the recipient than what is required to cover costs.

Coriolanus said:
Always felt that there's never a point in announcing such things.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a point to the ignore function in the first place. It's not the sort of thing that needs technology. And complaining about lengthy posts in a community thread devoted to politics is silly--an admission that one has no interest in serious discussion about disputed topics. Perhaps if the thread were,

Republicans bad!
Click to expand...

No, Democrats bad!
Click to expand...

Avon would feel more comfortable listening to all participants--or at least be more honest about why he's putting just me on ignore rather than, say, me and NSQuote, whose posts have run just as long.

AntoneM said:
If, if, if ,if. No proof.
Click to expand...

The point is, you're wrong when you say there are no legal ramifications for doing the things Planned Parenthood is accused of doing.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
At Trump's Twitter event he took the question on if Flacco was really an elite QB :lol
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
Serious discussion is possible without every post being an essay. Some posts here could definitely be more succinct and less repetitive. Not just Metaknight's posts.

That said I do not like the ignore function. It's not hard to scroll past walls of text and there is no point to announce that you are ignoring someone other than to get under their skin.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
"Profit," in this context, means receiving more from the recipient than what is required to cover costs.
Click to expand...

And this money goes where? Into other services that aren't abortion?

This whole critique is built up on nothing. It's an appeal to a cartoon-like understanding of the whole thing.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Frank the Great said:
Serious discussion is possible without every post being an essay. Some posts here could definitely be more succinct and less repetitive. Not just Metaknight's posts.

That said I do not like the ignore function. It's not hard to scroll past walls of text and there is no point to announce that you are ignoring someone other than to get under their skin.
Click to expand...

I try to make my posts as succinct as possible while still getting my point across. Remember that I'm at a disadvantage in this thread, in that basically everyone disagrees with me about everything. (As I've said before, it's basically a thread full of contrarians!) So when I make an argument, I have to actually make an argument. I don't get to rely on the implicit agreement of my readers to fill in the gap from "lol" to an actual point.

That said, if my posts are unnecessarily redundant, I'd appreciate having specific instances pointed out. Then, in the future, I'll be more sensitive to what could be cut before posting.

Ignatz Mouse said:
And this money goes where? Into other services that aren't abortion?

This whole critique is built up on nothing. It's an appeal to a cartoon-like understanding of the whole thing.
Click to expand...

The focus on earnings exceeding costs for the specific item sold comes from the law prohibiting "acquir[ing], receiv[ing], or otherwise transfer[ring] any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration[.]" "Valuable consideration" is defined to exclude "reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue." That "reasonable payments" language is commonly understood to mean payments not in excess of costs.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
SourShoes said:
With Trump's head shopped in? I've never seen it and must have it.
Click to expand...
I'll have to look deeper but this should suffice for now

trump-stunner.gif
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Farmboy said:
Yeah, I'm pretty 'happy' about being on the record as predicting Rubio a while back. He's certainly looking much better than Walker and Jeb, and I can't see him losing to Carson or Fiorina. The remaining question is: can he beat Trump? I still find it hard to believe The Donald can win the nomination, but with every month that passes with him on top I'm less sure of it.

I put 'happy' in quotes because I'd still be happier to be proven wrong about Rubio though. I actually think he's is a pretty dangerous opponent, second only to Kasich. What do you guys think -- is Water Boy electable or no?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm thinking that might have been a good call. I think I might have predicted it too at some point only because I've basically predicted everything at some point.

Only thing I've been solid on is the prediction that trump will stay at top at least until December. The CNN poll makes me a little worried about that one.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
As for the ignore function, i know not many of us wade into them thar gaming depths, but one would do well to remember where we are. That function is warranted.

Metaphoreus said:
The focus on earnings exceeding costs for the specific item sold comes from the law prohibiting "acquir[ing], receiv[ing], or otherwise transfer[ring] any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration[.]" "Valuable consideration" is defined to exclude "reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue." That "reasonable payments" language is commonly understood to mean payments not in excess of costs.
Click to expand...

Any reason why you excised the interstate commerce bit?
 
R

Retromelon

Member
It is my personal opinion that to ignore someone because their opinions are annoying is only doing a disservice to yourself. (Not taking about avon here, he complained about length) if your ideals cannot withstand scrutiny or debate, then what is the worth in having them. There are other posters who are far worthier of ignores wink than meta
 
A

Averon

Member
Can Walker stay in until Iowa?

He's polling at the lower single digit stage at this point. If something doesn't happen soon, it is only a matter of time before his donors jump ship.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
The focus on earnings exceeding costs for the specific item sold comes from the law prohibiting "acquir[ing], receiv[ing], or otherwise transfer[ring] any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration[.]" "Valuable consideration" is defined to exclude "reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue." That "reasonable payments" language is commonly understood to mean payments not in excess of costs.
Click to expand...

OK, so is there any evidence of that? All I have heard is that there's a solicitation process and an attempt to maximize the valuable parts reclaimed by abortions.

I should also make it clear that your comment addresses a potential legal concern, but that is not what I was getting at with my post. I'm specifically addressing the framing of the issue in public debate. There's a very specific appeal to the notion that maximizing abortions = money is somebody's pocket. That's why the "maximize" part above is stressed in the discourse. It makes it sound like somebody is trying to profit personally.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Side note: I don't use the ignore function on GAF, but I find it useful elsewhere. While I very often choose "view post" even on ignored posts, it acts and a consciousness-raiser to myself, to not be hooked by a known troll.

Not really needed here, as active moderation keeps that kind of thing to a minimum.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
Side note: I don't use the ignore function on GAF, but I find it useful elsewhere. While I very often choose "view post" even on ignored posts, it acts and a consciousness-raiser to myself, to not be hooked by a known troll.

Not really needed here, as active moderation keeps that kind of thing to a minimum.
Click to expand...

How do you even use this feature? Or is it not available on mobile?
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Coriolanus said:
I don't follow. That thing sez that congress could legislate intrastate commerce, given certain conditions, no?
Click to expand...

The case renders any requirement of "interstate commerce" a mere formality. When growing wheat on your own farm for your own consumption can be regulated as "interstate commerce," there's little argument that any sale--intrastate or interstate--would not be encompassed by that phrase. In other words, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which any sale of fetal tissues would not satisfy the interstate-commerce trigger.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
1. The only soul searching Biden needs to do is seeing whether Hillary can sail through these next couple weeks and put the email thing behind her. I think it's mostly passed.

2. I think the PP discussion should get its own thread. That said most of the debate here is glossing over the *fact* that Fiorina was making up things that did not happen. Full stop.

3. I've never muted someone that wasn't banned, or died, within a year. So now I don't bother.

4. There's this thing about Trump: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/frank-rich-in-praise-of-donald-trump.html
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
The case renders any requirement of "interstate commerce" a mere formality. When growing wheat on your own farm for your own consumption can be regulated as "interstate commerce," there's little argument that any sale--intrastate or interstate--would not be encompassed by that phrase. In other words, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which any sale of fetal tissues would not satisfy the interstate-commerce trigger.
Click to expand...

It is so odd to see you typing that.
 
S

Sianos

Member
Metaphoreus said:
Avon would feel more comfortable listening to all participants--or at least be more honest about why he's putting just me on ignore rather than, say, me and NSQuote, whose posts have run just as long.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm sure people have me on ignore by now too - if only people understood the beauty and importance of debating about semantics like we do. Nothing quite like typing a block of text up tearing apart the non-central fallacy or a clear motte-and-bailey substitution only to have no one respond to it and people continue to make the same errors.

Metaphoreus said:
I try to make my posts as succinct as possible while still getting my point across. Remember that I'm at a disadvantage in this thread, in that basically everyone disagrees with me about everything. (As I've said before, it's basically a thread full of contrarians!) So when I make an argument, I have to actually make an argument. I don't get to rely on the implicit agreement of my readers to fill in the gap from "lol" to an actual point.

That said, if my posts are unnecessarily redundant, I'd appreciate having specific instances pointed out. Then, in the future, I'll be more sensitive to what could be cut before posting.
Click to expand...

Hey, I personally like your longer posts and enjoy our debates. You're willing to engage my own longer posts even if they are full of semantics and I think its very valuable that you argue well in support of viewpoints that most of GAF disagrees with - it keeps everyone's debating skills sharp and prevents lazy discussion decaying into implicit agreement, as you said.

My final take on this Planned Parenthood debate is that the solution that I have offered not only accomplishes your stated terminal goals of punishing those responsible and preventing future wrongdoing, but also accomplishes this without restricting access to valuable public health services for those who need them most. I do not think removal of funding is necessary or effective, and have provided alternative plans that more directly accomplish your terminal goals and have a preventative element beyond theories of observational deterrence - without restricting access to a valuable public health service.

Personally, I prefer reading and participating in these sort of long political debates - analyzing polls is fun and all, but this far out it does get a bit repetitive.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Frank the Great said:
Serious discussion is possible without every post being an essay. Some posts here could definitely be more succinct and less repetitive. Not just Metaknight's posts.

That said I do not like the ignore function. It's not hard to scroll past walls of text and there is no point to announce that you are ignoring someone other than to get under their skin.
Click to expand...
Metas posts can't be shorter because only with rambling legalistic lengthy paragraphs can he pretend that his conservative talking points are actually more than misleading dubiously logical broadsides against the rights of women and people with out healthcare!

Metas current campaign to legitimize actual criminal behavior (I believe one party recording in California is illegal which is where some of the videos hes defending were likely taken)( Never mind his source breaking confidentiality agreement when no evidence of criminality has been exposed. ) is just a clever way to do an appeal to emotion dressd up in fancy lawyer talk. "Dead baby!"
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
NSQuote said:
Nothing quite like typing a block of text up tearing apart the non-central fallacy or a clear motte-and-bailey substitution only to have no one respond to it and people continue to make the same errors.
Click to expand...

Please tell me that was tongue in cheek. In 5000 words or less.
 
S

Sianos

Member
Coriolanus said:
Please tell me that was tongue in cheek.
Click to expand...

A recent example was when I made a really long post recently against people using the Stephen Fry "lol ur offended" image macro as the entire basis of their argument - which I believe was that people can't be offended by slurs used against them because the word offended and by extension the very concept of being offended has been invalidated.

Me said:
This is more of a criticism of literary prescriptivism than anything else -

Stephen Fry is correct that the series of phonemes constructing the word "offended" are inherently meaningless.

This is also true for every set of phonemes - all of the sets of phonemes we group in words have had their meanings ascribed by humans.

Denotation and connotation may be defined as two separate elements of a word, but the effective meaning of a word is not in the series of phonemes themselves or even what a group of humans with a particular level of authority says the word should mean - the true impact of a word is the message conveyed to the listener, whether it be denotative or connotative in nature.

Because of the way words acquire connotations due to emotions in response to the concept or event being represented by the word being associated with the word itself, words can have different effective meanings to people who have experienced different situations and heard words ascribed to their different situations.

Humans tend to be very object-based, and language and the deployment of words is a convenient way to label things for ease of cognition and explanation of cognition to other humans - but we forget that the word is meaningless; it is the conveyed message that matters.

Due to the effects of connotation, a word tends to have a gradient of meaning - especially words that convey a category. Meaningful categories tend to contain more than one idea grouped together based on a similarity. But that does not mean every idea represented by the label has the same meaning - ascribing a label to something does not homogenize it with other members of its new category and does not subtract any information.

Categorization is often times not done based on emotion unless the category itself explicitly has to do with emotion, yet because categories themselves are words they to are equipped with connotations based on ascribed emotions. Because typical members of the category tend to elicit a certain emotional response, the category obtains the same emotional response due to associations - this is how slurs "work", by attempting to categorize people under a label that is loaded with heavy, heavy negative connotations. People object to being misrepresented and are thus feel the range of emotions transcribed as "the state of being offended" by humans.

But to get back to Stephen Fry's quote: he makes the point that just saying "that offends me" doesn't really send much more information than "I am experiencing negative emotions expressed in a certain gradient over this". That is true, and I agree with him that just saying you are offended by something does not actually transcribe something with the characteristics that would lead it to be categorized as offensive.

But then fools try to overdraw this logic to say that the very concept of being offended is ridiculous. They seem to be under the deluded notion that if they can disavow the label offended for any connotation under its gradient than all of the ideas conveyed by the word must also be invalid.

They try to attack the idea of a person not wanting to have untrue negative connotations ascribed to them by attacking the word used to represent the idea of a person not wanting to have untrue negative connotations ascribed to them by pointing out that this word can also be used in a fashion that conveys only vague discontent. Their baffling logic is that if the word offended is disavowed for this one definition than all meanings represented by the word should also be disavowed.

This image is effective because it takes far more to explain to people how human language operates than it is to shout about how since this word has been overused now the concepts traditionally represented by the word have had their honor damaged.

It is usually used by spineless fools who cannot think of a way to effectively argue that people should not be upset by untrue negative connotations being ascribed to them but also lack the guts to say that they do not care how this other human feels.

/rambly post about semantics
Click to expand...

This one was sloppy because I was lazy and tried to both demonstrate the mechanisms on which slurs act and disprove the validity of that damn image macro as a compelling argument with the same intro.

I'm exaggerating a bit though, I just assume that if I don't get a response its because they have no counterargument beyond image macros and appeals to smuggled connotations.

EDIT: sub 1000 words for this whole post, still okay!
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
I used to be for semantical arguments but I've realized that like euphemisms they just mask unpopular or ugly ideas in something more respectable.
 
S

Sianos

Member
Granted, I haven't seen the Stephen Fry image macro since then, so maybe I did get my point across.

NYCmetsfan said:
I used to be for semantical arguments but I've realized that like euphemisms they just mask unpopular or ugly ideas in something more respectable.
Click to expand...

For me it's about tearing the euphemisms and smuggled connotations off of arguments to expose what really lies underneath. A defense against the dark arts of obfuscation.

Considering how often people fall for these semantical arguments, its important to teach people how to take them apart - especially when a person is exclusively arguing "by definition" (and their definitions are always inconsistent based on the point being proven) to try and smuggle in connotations.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Coriolanus said:
It is so odd to see you typing that.
Click to expand...

I disagree with Wickard 100%, but it's presently the law of the land, meaning that any requirement of "affecting interstate commerce" is basically unnecessary.

NYCmetsfan said:
Metas posts can't be shorter because only with rambling legalistic lengthy paragraphs can he pretend that his conservative talking points are actually more than misleading dubiously logical broadsides against the rights of women and people with out healthcare!

Metas current campaign to legitimize actual criminal behavior (I believe one party recording in California is illegal which is where some of the videos hes defending were likely taken)( Never mind his source breaking confidentiality agreement when no evidence of criminality has been exposed. ) is just a clever way to do an appeal to emotion dressd up in fancy lawyer talk. "Dead baby!"
Click to expand...

I'm increasingly persuaded you don't read the things I say, or don't understand the things you read. As an example, I haven't tried to "legitimize" illegal recordings in this thread or elsewhere. You fundamentally misunderstand the current topic of discussion, and then use your misunderstanding to attempt to discredit what I've said.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Only person that should be in all your ignore lists is PD. Look at Scott Walker the Dark Horse of 2016, the candidate democrats should be quaking in their boots about.
Edit:LLOOOOOOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu 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