la times poll thinks african american men in the 18-21 year old bracket are going to vote heavily for drumpf because there's one black 19 year old lad that lives in illinois in their pool of respondents who loves drumpf, and he keeps reporting his enthusiasm level as 10/10 (responses are weighed by enthusiasm)

so yea nah

This weekend ad blitz during mah foobaw sucks donkey dick! Pretty sure Hoya's the one paying for it, too.

Muh discourse

Bad faith has a couple different meanings I think. If someone "honestly believes" the things they're arguing I don't really consider that bad faith. Obviously lots of gray areas, but I don't think many people reach the point where they are being honestly deceitful.

Do you think people were being honest when they were offended by "black lives matter"?

I try not to group people like that. What's the point?

I know I sounded very pretentious!!

Dammit

Actually now I feel that question was in bad faith. Where does it end?!?!

I think a lot of people honestly feel like it's a double standard, that they're left out, etc.

Obviously their feelings aren't supported by facts, but their feelings are real.

Ok but....its an internet message board. None of these people are "real." So what possible difference could it make if they "honestly believe" something or not? They arent your spouse. If you think they are lying, then just pretend they are an actual person who really DOES believe those things. And then realize that there is literally zero difference, since you dont know that person anyway. What is the practical difference between someone who "pretends" to believe stupid things and someone who actually does, in the context of arguments held over the internet?

Is the problem that you just want them to be CONSISTENT, and if you think they are lying you are worried that they will switch tactics later? Thats fine I guess, but being a liar, being a person who argues in bad faith, and being inconsistent are not strongly related. None of us on here are very consistent, and the MOST consistent are probably the stupidest people with the vilest views.

Or is it more that you want it to hurt when you defeat them, and if they dont sincerely hold the beliefs they espouse you are worried that your victory will be hollow?

its bc people want to be part of an actual conversation rather than some stupid debating society-esque game

Yeah I wasn't really talking about over the internet. I guess that was obviously the context of the discussion.

Don't understand your tangents at the end at all so i feel like some combination of me miscommunicating and you misunderstanding must have occurred.


I don't disagree that being completely consistent can be near impossible. However some framework of logical consistency should be applied.

If you dont get anything out of having discussions with people who lie all the time, are inconsistent, dont respond to facts and argue in "bad faith," then thats ok (heck, its downright reasonable) and you should just ignore those people. But if you are crying because you cant beat them in an argument, that sounds kind of like a you problem.

That seems pretty hard to believe, but again, nothing precludes them from pretending or believing that they are part of an actual conversation. Just assume that the person really believes the stupid things they claim to believe. It costs you nothing.

And there is nothing more "actual" than talking to people who cant keep two consistent ideas straight in their heads and who have wildly contradictory beliefs

The parts at the end werent aimed at you

Nah, I just really have never been able to process that one, and I know people irl who state that they flat find the slogan offensive, like because it means black people are more important. Why would they lie to me, yet I do not believe them at all, at all.

But you don't have to group people for this one; like, can you give anyone credit for being intellectually honest and claiming "black live matter" after a police shooting was really offensive for them?

As someone who claims to be opposed to dishonesty and false equivalencies, do you agree that there is a difference between failing to prevent people from being killed, and murder?

You are mocking them for not voting for half-measures

Man I feel like reading vhawk gives me an idea of what people must think when I type stuff because I'm having a hell of a time following what he's saying.

It makes sense in my head, and it makes me sad when I have to spell it out since it should be fairly obvious to connect the dots if so inclined

But its not like you are in the minority so obviously my fault

Would any of you trump supporters be ok leaving your daughter in a room alone with him?

It's nothing like that at all. It's more akin to environmentalists opposing an ocean wind-farm because it obstructs their view.

Nath; I think in their belief system, they only get credit for babies born who would have been aborted otherwise ergo non-fertilized eggs do not count against your sin "tab". I.e. they don't want "potential abortions prevented" so much as "actual abortions denied". In fact, they actually get pissed off at people fornicating *without* getting pregnant. It's all a little confusing to me, too, but pretty sure those points hold. They really, really want pregnancies and then they really, really want them carried to term. There's actually no disagreement with the politicians' approach.

Hope that helps.

yes real people are full of contradictions. thats not the point

lets say i want to talk about the pro-life vs pro-choice thing. im pro-choice and i want to discuss the issue with someone on the other side. you jump in and say yo im pro-life lets do it

lets assume you're not actually a pro-lifer, but that you know the argument inside out and can accurately portray one. thats not good enough. i might want to know how you arrived at your pro-life position, whether you've ever questioned it, what made you question it, how you evaluate the arguments against your position and so on.

you cant do any of that because you're not the genuine article. i dont care to hear a fiction regarding about how the character you are playing came to his pro-life position. it might be plausible and it might be logically consistent but its not real and im not interested

this is why people were so pissed off with dblj when he was outed as a fake

makes u think

Same with Khan, LBJ, and all the other great leaders of history

Would you be okay leaving your email where Hillary could get to it in an insecure fashion

Chuckles.

The President anybody would feel most comfortable locking their naked 16-year old 36-24-36 daughter in a room with is Jimmy Carter and he got henpecked by the OPEC

chessmate