That's the idea, they want the goal to be unattainable so that the war never ends.

It's almost like you don't even care what I say in response to you, as long as you can find some angle to spin "the other side" from.

Could be that, could be your argument is terrible.

Saying that you oppose bombing a place you've never heard of is certainly reasonable. It should be the default position! Saying "I don't know" is of course also reasonable. But if you aren't aware of any reasons to bomb a place, of course saying you don't support bombing it is reasonable.

Ilya Somin, who writes quite a bit about the rational voter paradox, on that survey's results:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mbing-agrabah/

If you've never heard of a place then saying you oppose bombing it is only reasonable if you oppose ALL bombings (which is a viable position). If you support bombing a place you've never heard of then you presumably support bombing all places that are not known to you even if said place is simply a neighborhood in a US city. The default stance if you support some, but not all bombings should certainly be "I don't know."

Why would you oppose something as a default? What if that place you don't know is actually a single compound housing all ISIS leaders and our intelligence does know that? Then you basically said you oppose bombing that place because you are ignorant even though you would have supported it had you known. If that is the case then you answer should have been that you didn't know and not that you oppose it.

in the interest of pointing out both sides

Relevant Xpost from politards

Why would I oppose bombing a country or city by default? Because I would need to have a compelling reason to bomb a country. Bombing a country should be treated as a grave action, a last resort. So if I've never heard of a country and know nothing about it of course I would oppose bombing it.

To clarify: The relevant information I took from that survey isn't "lol dumb conservatives think Aladdin is real," but "Boy, a lot more Republicans seem willing to bomb anything that sounds brown."

I wish they had asked, "Do you support the bombing of the United Arab Emirates?"

Why would you oppose bombing it instead of saying you don't know?

If someone asks if you what your thoughts are on person X's strategy for the Middle East and you have no idea who person X is then would you say you support it, oppose it, or don't know? If you don't have enough information to make a decision you are comfortable living with then your answer should never be either of support or oppose. The default should always start at the center and only move toward support or opposition once you have enough information to make a decision.

I just don't understand how you can have an opinion on something that you know you don't know about? If you think you know what something is and it turns out to be false then I get it. If you know you don't know what a place is or its relevance how is the default ever to support or oppose bombing it and not to want to gather more information before offering an opinion?

Right, so if you pick a name from the phone book and ask "should we summarily execute this guy" the only acceptable answer is DON'T KNOW NEED MORE INFO

yes. or also if you pick a place and ask if we need to bomb it unless you're already learned on the subject. I would know we don't need to bomb Washington DC and a lot of other places, but would have no clue on the millions of other real and fake places you could name.

I wish they would have asked 'Should the US accept refugees from Agrabah?' It would be interesting to see what % of dems blindly accept blue genies with magical lamps into their country.

Well I find it weird that you came to that conclusion considering how many Democrats felt the same way. I found it way more surprising/concerning that 19% of Democrats wanted to than 30% Republicans. I'm not surprised at all that a decent portion of Republicans buy some sort of anti-brown rhetoric, but am sort of surprised the parties aren't so different in that regards.

I used my analogy to show that the poll doesn't really mean anything though, other than the surprise at the similar anti-brown rhetoric on the left side. "Boy, a lot more Democrats seem willing to ban anything that sounds scary"

Links to this:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/10/...ical-ignorance

But, see, I could spin the numbers to say there is a substantial difference. "Nearly three times as many Democrats as Republicans say we should not bomb Aladdin's fictional hometown."

And 10x more Republicans think banning water is a bad idea. Are you being intentionally obtuse? There is no relevant information to the poll. The poll means nothing other than republicans are more likely to want to bomb brown sounding countries, which isn't surprising at all, just like Democrats are more likely to want to ban scary sounding things. We are wasting too many posts on this, it was a dumb poll created intentionally for silly purposes.

GONG

DEBATE TIME

in

for the BERN

Bern mighta had my vote if he didn't excuse Hilary about the emails. Like, if he wanted to win, you push that, and hope she ends up in jail. Looks like a puppet to me now.

so theyre not gonna start the debate for another 20 minutes?

**** this

I'm old and mature enough now that I just write in fictional characters on my ballot. It will probably simply be "Superman" for this one.