Support NeoGAF

[TheDrizzlerJ11]

That's like this guy I know who wants to keep his money in a secure place so nothing will happen to it.

He keeps it in a shoe box in his room. That's right, his entire savings, thousands of dollars, in a mere shoe box.

True story.

You and some friends should buy him a small safe for his birthday, but tell him he has to bolt it down or you'll take it back. My cousin was like this and we did this. It's pretty amazing how some1 could think an unsecured place is safe just cause it's in their house.

 

[Dan]

Is this a strawman argument against the Laffer curve?

It was mostly posted as a laugh.

 

[TheDrizzlerJ11]

That's altruism, and I'm sure that you can apply it to abortions as well.

I can completely see the logic of being for the execution of guilty people while at the same time being against abortions (the latter are innocent), but when it comes to war it feels like you have to do quite a bit of rationalizing in order to maintain an overall consistency.

If you think war is never necessary you're being naive. They're different, war is much more complicated.

 

[Alucrid]

It's more complicated than that. Someone can be opposed to allowing what they think is the killing of innocent children by abortion, but still think that bombing Germany in WW 2 is justified, even though it may cause the deaths of children, because not bombing Germany could lead to the deaths of millions of more people by the hands of the Nazis. I don't see any contradiction there. And I assume that pro-lifers are not in favor of innocent people being put in prison or executed, but only guilty people.

Prolife: "You can't kill these fetuses. ALL LIFE IS SACRED! *Unless they've committed a crime or are Muslim."

That's like this guy I know who wants to keep his money in a secure place so nothing will happen to it.

He keeps it in a shoe box in his room. That's right, his entire savings, thousands of dollars, in a mere shoe box.

True story.

Is he Asian?

Spoiler

or the mom from that woodstock movie?

 

[TheDrizzlerJ11]

Prolife: "You can't kill these fetuses. ALL LIFE IS SACRED! *Unless they've committed a crime or are Muslim."

Stereotyping is fun huh?

Spoiler

I'm Pro-Choice

Edit: He added in that second part after this post. I see a pattern.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

well even if they're not opposing...still...what the fuck

Ignorance is no barrier to holding political views.

 

[Shanadeus]

If you think war is never necessary you're being naive. They're different, war is much more complicated.

War which will result in the deaths of innocent children "can" be necessary, just as abortions which will results in the deaths of innocent children "can" be necessary.

In both cases you have a goal, whether it is resources, a war of retaliation or a matter of national defense in the case of a war and with abortions your goal might be to save the mother's life, not birth a child with health problems or simply stay independent.

And in both cases you have casualties that are inevitable, regardless of how important your goal is there will be the deaths of innocents.

Now there are ways you can rationalize war in a manner that exclude the possibility of using the same reasoning for abortions but that is my point.

You need to do a whole lot more rationalizing to be able to be against abortions while being for wars and it would require even more rationalizing to actually partake in this war and kill innocents - whereas the stance of being against abortions while being for executions of guilty is pretty non-conflicting and doesn't need much reasoning.

 

[Blackace]

God is a mighty and just God who loves all his children
.
.
.
.
.
fucking ni**ers

 

[MoFuzz]

You and some friends should buy him a small safe for his birthday, but tell him he has to bolt it down or you'll take it back. My cousin was like this and we did this. It's pretty amazing how some1 could think an unsecured place is safe just cause it's in their house.

I know right? All it takes is a single match and poof! Years of hard work and savings, gone. No record, no trace.

He's more of an acquantance than a friend though, so I'm not gonna run around pulling together funds to buy him a safe. The guy's been told countless times, but he just won't listen. Oh well, if something happens, he can't that he wasn't warned beforehand.

Is he Asian? or the mom from that woodstock movie?

Haha, no on both counts.

 

[Alucrid]

Stereotyping is fun huh?

Spoiler

I'm Pro-Choice

Edit: He added in that second part after this post. I see a pattern.

You're taking me seriously? :lol

Spoiler

Because you should be.

Spoiler

But I'm Asian

Spoiler

And I keep my money in a shoebox.

 

[UraMallas]

Cognitive dissonance?

 

[TestOfTide]

- People who oppose Homosexuality because they are religious christians yet don't oppose banks that charge interest (USURY is a Sin according to the Old and NEW Testaments)

- People who support gun rights but don't think weed should be legal

- Mormonism. Seriously, how can fall for such a blatant attempt to religiously justify the Trail of Tears.

 

[thetrin]

Very simply: most human beings don't have actual opinions. They merely believe what those around them believe.

 

[MoFuzz]

I'm Asian

And I keep my money in a shoebox.

Your new tag, I presume.

 

[Arnie]

Christians who believe in evolution always get me. If the bible was anything other than a "sacred" book then that would be considered a major plot hole, disproving the legitimacy of all the "facts" it contains.

 

[WillyFive]

It happens to people all the time. Mostly because they are not conflicting to them.

The problem goes down to a deeper layer.

For example, I may say [thing] is great, and you may say that same [thing] is great. But what either of us don't know is that for me, [thing] means a totally different thing than what your [thing] does.

For example, I think the 2D Sonic games suck for the same reasons others like it. This leads into the appearance of conflicting opinions when I say something like 'they need to make this better, and not like Sonic 2.'

 

[JGS]

I'm guilty of my own opposing viewpoint regarding war.

There are few instances that I think war is the way to go. Only defense against an invasion really. It literally saddens me when I see people anxious to go to war and kill people and angry at politician who push it but stay safe on a whole other continent.

On the other hand, when a war starts I can't help to wonder why a scorched earth policy isn't used!

I blame Age of Empires.

 

[CrankyJay]

wtf?

 

[Cyan]

Really? Because the Laffer curve predicts $0 in tax revenues at 0% taxes. From wikipedia: Reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

In that case, it's not reductio ad absurdum because it presents the Laffer curve as making an argument which it does not. Hence, stawman

*sigh*

To be more specific, it's a reductio ad absurdum aimed at politicians who mindlessly shout about how cutting taxes raises revenues, and are at least theoretically citing that waste of a napkin.

 

[Jerk]

Really? Because the Laffer curve predicts $0 in tax revenues at 0% taxes. From wikipedia: Reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

In that case, it's not reductio ad absurdum because it presents the Laffer curve as making an argument which it does not. Hence, stawman.

It completely misses the point as to why things didn't work out the way Regan hoped. It's not that the Laffer curve is wrong. It's a vague approximation of reality. The real question as to whether tax rates should be raised or lowered to increase revenue depends on where we currently are on the curve. If we're already to the left of the maxima, then the Laffer curve would tell you to raise tax rates to increase tax revenue.

They are not mutually exclusive...

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Argument on gaming side.

Idiot claims he's right because he holds the majority opinion and, on the same page, says that the only reason the majority of people posting disagree with him is because of the "hivemind".

Both are dumb non-arguments separately, together they make a perfect storm of stupid.

 

[The Technomancer]

People are excellent at rationalizing. We can make just about anything make sense, its why I've spent years trying to train myself to think critically. Maybe I'll never succeed, but I'm trying to make the effort.

 

[Gaborn]

God is a mighty and just God who loves all his children
.
.
.
.
.
fucking ni**ers

That reminds me of a HORRIBLY racist t-shirt I saw on T-Shirt Hell. It had a line like "I hate..." and then it listed around 10 groups of people with racial epithets from various nationalities, and then it ended "But I <3" n-word. I remember it being HUGELY controversial 5 or so years ago.

 

[Roto13]

i mean how can you decry people who have hateful speech toward gay people and then go ahead and spout hateful shit about gay people?

Where's the hate in that, exactly? It's stupid and wrong, but it's not hateful. It's not contradictory, either.

Typical Shanadeus bullshit

Really? Every thread?

 

[TheDrizzlerJ11]

You're taking me seriously? :lol

Spoiler

Because you should be.

Spoiler

But I'm Asian

Spoiler

And I keep my money in a shoebox.

I know the second part is joke.. The first part you are stereotyping all pro-lifers as nutjob religious folk?

War which will result in the deaths of innocent children "can" be necessary, just as abortions which will results in the deaths of innocent children "can" be necessary.

In both cases you have a goal, whether it is resources, a war of retaliation or a matter of national defense in the case of a war and with abortions your goal might be to save the mother's life, not birth a child with health problems or simply stay independent.

And in both cases you have casualties that are inevitable, regardless of how important your goal is there will be the deaths of innocents.

Now there are ways you can rationalize war in a manner that exclude the possibility of using the same reasoning for abortions but that is my point.

You need to do a whole lot more rationalizing to be able to be against abortions while being for wars and it would require even more rationalizing to actually partake in this war and kill innocents - whereas the stance of being against abortions while being for executions of guilty is pretty non-conflicting and doesn't need much reasoning.

The importance of the goal is very relevant though...
You can say both are defending their current lifestyles, but one person brought it upon themselves (even if they didn't bring it upon themselves this becomes a religious thing if they're for it and against what they stand for if avoidable, and it is avoidable you can simply have the child) while the other is out of self defense or the defense of an ally (where it becomes a survival thing which takes precedence over anything when it's a groups decision). Again, I'm pro-choice but I don't feel that sharing these two views are conflicting.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

My brothers gay, I was the one that was assaulted.

So... people are stupid?

 

[Shanadeus]

The importance of the goal is very relevant though...
You can say both are defending their current lifestyles, but one person brought it upon themselves while the other is out of self defense or the defense of an ally. Again, I'm pro-choice but I don't feel that sharing these two views are conflicting.

The importance of the goal is pretty arbitrary though, it values from person to person like you say. And even if one use the argument that war is out of self defense or the protection of an ally while people who get pregnant brought it on themselves (you kind of have to ignore rape cases or make exceptions for them for this argument to work) then there's been a considerable amount of rationalization - which was kind of my point

To try to reconcile pro-war and anti-abortion beliefs require quite a lot of mental gymnastics while it's not that hard to internally argue for no abortions and be for executions of guilty.

 

[MC Safety]

It's a common enough error, but it's not "Jive" it's "jibe."

So I'm talking to this person at work, and we come to the discussion of homosexuality and I was talking about the recent Joe Burns video. Anyway, so he goes on and on about how much he supports gay rights, how he hates bigoted jerks who say hateful things about them and cause them to kill themselves...

...and then he tells me he believes it's a shame especially because gays can't help that they were molested as children which made them gay




seriously, how the fuck can a single person hold these two opposing viewpoints?

 

[TheDrizzlerJ11]

The importance of the goal is pretty arbitrary though, it values from person to person like you say. And even if one use the argument that war is out of self defense or the protection of an ally while people who get pregnant brought it on themselves (you kind of have to ignore rape cases or make exceptions for them for this argument to work) then there's been a considerable amount of rationalization - which was kind of my point

To try to reconcile pro-war and anti-abortion beliefs require quite a lot of mental gymnastics while it's not that hard to internally argue for no abortions and be for executions of guilty.

Just because it's complicated doesn't make it unreasonable though. I understand that those with messed up views tend to overcomplicate them but my first sentence is still true.

 

[Sibylus]

I'm guilty of my own opposing viewpoint regarding war.

There are few instances that I think war is the way to go. Only defense against an invasion really. It literally saddens me when I see people anxious to go to war and kill people and angry at politician who push it but stay safe on a whole other continent.

On the other hand, when a war starts I can't help to wonder why a scorched earth policy isn't used!

I blame Age of Empires.

Good 'ol AoE.

I'm an inhuman monster in strategy games, but I'm a saint in shooters.

 

[djtiesto]

Tea Partiers who constantly harp on eliminating the deficit yet are fighting tooth and nail to have the Bush tax cuts continue. Wouldn't repealing the Bush tax cuts help somewhat with the deficit?

Also there was a sign I saw in a tea party protest (it's in one of the threads here) which said "cut taxes, not defense!". Umm, how do you expect to pay for defense without taxes?

Tea partiers and religious fundamentalists are full of these points of view.

 

[tmarques]

Have a gay friend who's a devout catholic. Tried to understand the reasoning behind it once, but he seemed to get offended, so I never went there again.