Phoenix Wright
-
Posts
5,329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Phoenix Wright
-
-
On 8/19/2017 at 11:09 AM, eclipse said:
I'd much rather have an educational inscription added to any existing statues - that way, people can learn about the people depicted, and the artist's creation is intact.
what is the point of having a statue (a symbol of praise and admiration) of a bad historical figure?
what you're describing is a museum exhibit. you give the apollo 11 astronauts a statue, not the most prominent enemies of the united states.
-
thank you identity politics for making it that much harder for humans to reason.
life, the left and right are not sports teams. when your nfl team does something wrong (dirty hit or something) you can talk to me and say, yeah well the rams did such and such. that works.
a nazi ran over a politically left-leaning woman because that's what they do. it is not surprising, though is plenty tragic.
yes, violence came to the nazis as well. but no one was even beaten, let alone killed.
they are not equal. you cannot aim to defend nazis because they are, at the end of the day, right-leaning. that is madness.
-
10 hours ago, Jotari said:
The white supremacists were gathering in protest against the removal of a statue (which I might actually agree with from a historical art point of view, though once again I'm not going to pretend I know in the slightest what the situation is). They were ostensibly there for a non violent reason. Now of course it's pretty damn likely that's complete bullshit and they wanted to provoke a conflict, but it's still not a case where they descended on a crowd of people who were there first and attacked them without warning. What I expect did happen is that both sides were there, both sides were very angry. Because most people hate Nazis and Nazis hate most people. And that hate lead to violence. Yes, the lion's share of the blame lies with the people who have a hatefueld ideology, carried weapons and actually killed someone. But there was fighting and I don't think it can entirely be declared self defense on the part of the larger group. Both sides were angry, both sides wanted to hurt and destroy the opinions of the other. And both sides ended up fighting the other. That's what I think happened.
Also don't worry about picking on me :) I can take it. We're just debating here. If things get heated just look at my signature and know I'm mostly talking as a sort of nihilistic devil's advocate. I'd also like to dispel the notion that being a Nazi makes one inherently evil or even violent. John Rabe was a staunch Nazi but he also happened to be one of the most brave and selfless people in World War II. Even when you deal with an ideology that is objectively evil, people are still people which means they're very complex and often contradictory. Even with Nazis it's not necessarily black and white.
Oh wow, don't get me wrong and think I believe there's justification for white supremacy. I said that racial supremacy is understandable compared to flat earth beliefs. Racial supremacy is all about wanting to increase (or maintain) one's own standing and position which is pretty human. Now to do that to the extent of putting down others and justifying violence is definitely not acceptable, but at least I can comprehend that humans would be selfish and greedy enough to do that. But to ignore all evidence and common sense as flat earthers to do is well...just baffling to me. It'd be like denying the existence of Denmark and claiming all the documented evidence of it is fraudulent. It's ridiculous and ultimately rather pointless.
You also raise a good question. How does one deal with a problem like extremist groups organised like this. Do we attack them and wipe them off the face of the Earth? I don't think so, not only would that be pretty difficult to do but meeting vitriol with vitriol is just going to provoke sympathy from people who are on the fence. Their opinions need to be combatted in some higher way than basic violence. Not sure how beyond equal opportunity employment prospects and representation in media but I just feel like punching people in the face isn't going to help anyone much.
sorry for putting words in your mouth. i blame my laziness and the fact that i'm on mobile rn.
the solution is something we've yet to do: reject their beliefs at every level of government. if far right politicians say these beliefs are unacceptable, over time change will occur. but, as trump showed, as long as they're an important voting base, harsh reactions (politically speaking) to white supremacy from the right won't be seen as often as they should be. how long did it take trump to denounce duke? and even then it was a very weak.
politicians need to forget about the office and think of the future. but our very system is setup in a way that makes that sort of thinking very hard to act on. not that i think we should absolve politicians of blame--worse, they're doing nothing to change it.
-
like...? be specific @Lushen
-
2 hours ago, Jotari said:
While I don't believe you're wrong, I can still at least understand why someone would be a racial supremacists. Flat Earthers just place their hands over their ears and ignore absolutely all logic and evidence to dissuade their beliefs. Course I'd still rather more of the latter than the former.
Eh yeah. I literally said racial supremacists are more harmful. You just repeated what I said.
While you're probably bang on with Trump's agenda, let's not pretend it was done without escalation. The white supremacists certainly share a larger portion of the blame but they didn't suddenly attack a group that was larger than them without provocation.
Still any word yet on how the helicopter managed to go down? That's the most bizarre thing to me about all this. Helicopters don't just crash. Did someone throw something at them or something? Were the pilots improperly trained? All the news outlets just seem to mention it but don't elaborate at all.
eh, when it comes to flat earthers being deluded, it is indeed sad. but unfortunately ignoring science because it doesn't fit one's own narrative of the world is a practice common to 99% of the world population...including some folks here i won't name...
in any case, what do you see as a justification for white supremacy beliefs???
further, your point about blame is just silly. white supremacists are wholly in the position of power every step of the fucking way. if they feel threatened it's because they have a victim complex. if they commit violence because of the perceived threat, they are wholly to blame. and always will be wholly to blame.
i don't think people should be going around hitting these neonazis. that feeds a narrative i don't think anyone needs. but goddammit these people should feel shame from every facet of life--from the workplace to the highest levels of government. their beliefs should be treated as the nonsense they are and cast out. crimes committed in the names of these beliefs should carry sentences akin to hate crimes.
we need to show these beliefs are neither okay to hold socially/civically or privately. we should always aim to progress our society.
-
1 hour ago, Lushen said:
I majored with an emphasis in nuclear engineering but ok.
North Korea already has nukes BTW, so how hard it is to make is like...not relevant? In fact, if you clicked on the link I started this discussion with, you'd read that they just recently made the breakthrough of attaching nukes to a missile so yea...
majored...in what with an emphasis in nuclear engineering? so far your claims don't lay credence to your credentials. japan had planes to bomb us with. not missiles. nk's missiles don't yet reach japan. short of a miracle invasion, how do you expect a nuclear warhead to make its way to the united states from north korea?
north korea has fission nukes at best (uranium). not hydrogen bombs.
i did read the first link. you ignored my point about it lol.
-
43 minutes ago, Lushen said:
You do know how nukes work right? Like...literally the existance of nukes in N Korea means they can strike us. If you're referring to the range not being long enough to hit the US from Korea, I'll remind you the Japanesse bomb'd Pearl Harbor, one of our military bases first. And N Korea has explicitly mentioned Guam.
This is a bipartisan issue, I'm not fear mongering.
not to sound like a dick, but i probably know far more accurately than you how a nuke works. and missiles. and planes, apparently. i've linked two things absolutely worth watching in this thread already: the oppenheimer doc and the short but sweet wwii info vid fallen.io. you might begin to understand both the physical difficulties in making a nuke and the political complexities surrounded by their manufacture and ''use.'' what's more--nk probably has no idea how to practically manufacture a hydrogen bomb.
it being a bipartisan issue and whether or not you are fear mongering are wholly unrelated.
11 minutes ago, Lushen said:Yea, that's the silver lining. Despite what China has been saying, I don't think they'd support N Korea. The US and China have one of the most reliant trade deals in history, neither country could survive without the other's technology and manufacturing IMO. The issue is, I don't think Kim Jong Un is...the most intelligent man in the world and I think his arrogance could supersede all logic. After all, N Korea has claimed that they were the first to put a man on the Sun.
Obviously as I replied directly to his point about his brother who could change saying that it doesn't matter since Michael Brown didn't change before he died so what he could have potentially done is irrelevant and we can't speak for what might have been.
your opinions are pretty hastily formed. what you have to say about un contradicts a previous article you linked concerning nk's own power lmao.
-
1 hour ago, Lushen said:
People can't change when they're dead. Whatever Michael Brown's potential was, he died as a man violently attacking a police officer and lionizing him will only encourage the same behavior.
Eh, at a certain point you just have to agree to disagree. More important news, N. Korea's WMD program has reached an all time high. I'm telling you, N. Korea is more of a threat to the US than anything else.
People like to excuse WW3 as a fantasy in the minds of conspiracy theorists, but keep in mind WW2 was only 72 years ago. Though, I doubt Korea would rally enough people behind them, other countries like China rely off us way too much for trade.
'more important'? nk more of threat than anyone else? nk literally cannot strike us.
stop your fear mongering.
-
2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:
Michael Brown is admittedly not the best example.
And BLM has since rallied behind clearer examples of police officers going unpunished after blatant, on-camera misconduct resulting in needless deaths (Eric Garner and Tamir Rice come to mind).sure he isn't the shining example, but that's missing the broader point.
this 18 yo young man is being vilified by some of the public because he made a few mistakes. my brother was actually not very much different from lushen's view of michael brown when he was 18. my brother isn't a waste of space, and i'm not saying that from an emotional point of view--people can change. people can grow. 18 is so young to pass a sort of judgement like that.
michael brown is as good an example as most. lethal force was used when it shouldn't have been. on a person that, perhaps given time to grow, could have become a real member of society.
-
On 8/4/2017 at 3:42 PM, Lushen said:
Why should we lionize Michael Brown? He was doped up on marijuana, a robber, and charged a police officer like a bear when he being arrested. We should lionize this behavior? Michael Brown contributed literally nothing positive towards society during his life.
why should we lionize him? valid question.
why are you vilifying him?
-
On 7/21/2017 at 4:03 PM, Hylian Air Force said:
Religion is an excuse, science is a tool. Just as any tool can be misused for evil or unethical things, whereas religion is an abstract concept, which are often used as justifications, excuses, or, at worst, scapegoats. Also, if your other statement is true, why is the Mad Scientist trope a thing? Those kinds of people are motivated by discovery, but as the world found out, a lot of modern aerodynamic science was found out in inhumane and unethical experiments, primarily in both Nazi Germany and the USSR. Science advances when morality and ethics fail, that's why people think that religious people hate science. However, the only science the Nazis used to justify it was eugenics, which is not a popular field of study because of that.
there's a lot wrong with this post which raven thankfully already got to, but let me add that the mad scientist trope is fantasy. there are no such scientists lol. there are more complicating and interesting reasons why scientists commit some of the worst crimes in humanity. i mean, look no further than home (eg, the usa) to see likely the worst application of science. full doc:
edit: hmm, i put the other spoiler tag immediately after the vid, but looks like something got fucked up and idk how to fix it. vid + rest of the post is in spoiler.
also, eugenics is not science.
On 7/21/2017 at 6:49 PM, Shoblongoo said:I am perpetually amazed by how many people don't understand this.
me too. at times it can be quite depressing. humanity's most useful tool for a continued survival of the species seems, at times, to be the most willingly misunderstood field of study by the general populace.
On 7/21/2017 at 11:46 PM, blah the Prussian said:True, but you can commit atrocities in the name of rationalism, which is very much a belief system. See the "Republican marriages" during the French Revolution for a particularly bile inducing example.
i don't see how the two are connected (ie, science itself as a body of knowledge and rationalism as a school of thought).
On 7/22/2017 at 3:36 PM, Lord Chrom of Ylisse said:I know that science isn't a belief system. I'm just saying that there are certain good "concepts" that can be used for bad.
And you can definitely commit atrocities in the name of science. Science not being a belief system doesn't change that.
it literally means you can't. you can't do anything in the name of science.
i don't think "concept" is a word that accurately describes science. maybe more accurately the "concept" of the scientific method which is crucial to the practice of science, but science itself is more simply a body of knowledge that tells you how the world actually works. i'm simplifying a bit, but for the purposes of discussion, science is "facts." you cannot commit anything in the name of "facts," that just doesn't make any sense. there's no belief system there.
sagan would say, "science is more than a body of knowledge. it's a way of thinking--a way of skeptically interrogating the universe." i agree with this. so i think the crucial thing for you to understand is this:
belief systems say, "this is how it is."
science asks, "is this how it is?"
there is no belief system when the entire point is to ask questions. there is no where to place faith or ideological thought, etc. people will attach things to it, but that's not the fault of science, that's the fault of people.
18 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:Nazism's Holocaust-inducing eugenics system was based on the understanding of genetics that they had at the time. Marxism and the resulting Communist regimes were built on almost as much economics as philosophy.
Now, you could say that those two infamous examples used a lot of fake or false science to support them. But how can you say that that is any different from a suicidal cult that claims to be based on biblical principles or the militant groups in the Middle East that fight for a false understanding of Islam?
using fake or false science to propagate an agenda isn't the fault of science. again, science isn't a belief system. eugenics fits the bill for a dictatorship. execution for apostasy fits the bill for religion. you have a belief system to blame those actions for.
if science disappeared today, those atrocities and the reasoning behind committing those atrocities would be the same.
-
On 7/20/2017 at 2:12 PM, Lord Chrom of Ylisse said:
Personally I think any idea, even good ones, can be corrupted and used in a bad manner. For example, I think we all agree that Science is good, but at the same time the Nazis (mis)used science to justify their genocide. Same rule applies with religion.
The people who use religion in a bad manner are few. Most of us don't believe we're religiously commanded to kill or otherwise harm other people. For most of Religion can be one or more of several things. Of the top of my head:
-For many, religion is just a name. They will say they are "Muslim" "Christian" or "Jewish" but it doesn't play any role in their lives.
-For some people religion is merely a tribal identity. There are some places in the world(such as parts of the Middle East) where religion assumes a similar role to ethnicity in that it people are divided into different communities and political factions based on their religion. A person might not believe in a religion but he will still align himself with one of these factions as a kind of tribal identity
-For some people it's a cultural identity. An example of this is "cultural" Muslims and christians.
-For some people like me, religion is something we seriously believe in and use as a lens to look at the world. As a Muslim I seriously believe that God exists, that the Quran is the word of God, and that Muhammad is God's final messenger. I also believe in and try to follow to the best of my ability the injunctions found in Islamic Law and Jurisprudence. Of course, that doesn't mean that I kill people who don't believe in these things. Personally, I use religion to become a better human being and to improve the condition of the people around me.
The vast majority of people who use religion in the ways listed above probably do not believe religion commands them to kill or otherwise harm people.
As for religion and rationality. I might make another post about that later.
science isn't a belief system, so the analogy fails. if you commit atrocities, it can't be in the name of science.
-
14 minutes ago, Euklyd said:
Why the fuck are you guys still fucking talking about telephone surveys and random statistical variation? Jesus Christ.
It's completely obvious that the Russians hacked the voting machines; you can tell because Trump won (this is the real reason the polls were all wrong, btw, idk what those ivory tower academics like @Lord Raven are going on about).
Similarly, because Trump won in this way, you can deduce that he's colluding with the Russians — which is why they hacked the voting machines in the first place.
i cant tell if this is a shitpost or not.
if not, can you expand a bit on the obviousness of collusion and hacking?
-
2 hours ago, Lushen said:
Apologies for the confusion. Perhaps my short-handed writing was a little confusing. I have never actually owned a facebook. The 'threats' were directed at two of my close friends and all of my family members who are Republican. The result was my family members withdrawing from Facebook and my two friends ranting to me about it. This is why I choose to not have a facebook (in addition to the fact that if I get drunk at a bar I don't want pictures of me all over facebook, but that's another topic). A couple examples were: "Everyone who voted for Trump, defriend me right now" and "If you voted for Trump, you're no better than the man who murdered x" (related to a shooting of an muslim citizen). There were 'kill yourself' posts, but they've since been removed.
I wasn't comparing undergrad research to funded research directly. However, a bunch of funded research comes from graduate programs from different colleges. The students responsible for this research are 1-2 years into their graduate programs. In other words, they have 1-2 years more experience and are regarded significantly higher than they should be in my personal opinion.
My view against research is not a view against fact. I just don't have enough faith in research to call their facts facts. For example, NASA (like harvard) keeps posting propaganda related to climate change. Coal mining corporations keep posting propaganda related to climate change. Each of these only post content in agreement with their views. In both cases, they site surveys.
Just to be clear, surveys are NOT fact. If you say something with the phrase "x% of people" your fact is no longer a fact. This goes back to the "Clinton winning the election" thing we were talking about earlier. If this survey were fact, it would be impossible for her to lose the election. You said that was the media, not researchers - but the media was conducting paid, professional surveys. The issue is, it seems Republicans are less likely to answer telephone surveys than democrats. That's the only logical explanation why they were so wrong (by a longshot). Thus, telephone surveys are bogus. In addition, you can throw out internet surveys because the internet is dominated by young people who tend to be liberal/democrats. So what's left? Where are these people getting their surveys study groups from? The grocery store? An example would be the "97% consensus" for climate change among climate scientists. This 'fact' has been referenced by multiple politicians including Barack Obama. There is a multitude of articles showing that the study group responsible for this statistic was extremely bias and the statistic is absolute garbage. Despite this, it's STILL being posted all over the place.
If you truly think Trump's approval rating is below 40%...you're just silly. There's no way someone who won the election with a SLIGHTLY lower pop vote percentage somehow lost 10-15% in his first few days of office. Thing is, trump supporters are giving the big "F U" to telephone surveys.
And 80% consensus against the health care bill? Well, for starters it seems like it was close to 50/50 in congress. And in my daily life, it seems to be 50/50. Should I really believe some research saying my daily life is so misguided? Maybe they need to figure out why their research keeps failing to represent reality.
Anyways, that's just surveys. I know there are other kinds of statistics, but with political science those are usually the most relevant.
condolences. people shouldn't have to deal with that because of their political leanings.
raven already said this, but nothing a grad student does alone gets published. at least not for a few years. it's not a sensible comparison in any regard.
surveys done right are fact. i admit i don't hold much faith in a survey, but there's little else soft science people can do.
-
apologies for the length of this post
On 6/21/2017 at 2:27 PM, Nobody said:I'm a big fan of free trade. I live in a very protectionist country, and it's outrageous how much more expensive some goods are here, specially imported ones, and the lack of competition due to a barrier to foreign products means that a lot of what we have is of lower quality as well. It's easy to be against free trade when you live in a country that has a fairly free market, since the consequences don't seem as obvious and you get to 'keep yer jerbs', but lack of free trade makes the price of goods go up for everyone (which mainly affects people of low income) and also lower their quality.
The job loss is sort of bullshit as well. There is no known association between openess of a country's economy and its uneployment rate. Just as globalization makes some jobs 'go' elsewhere, it also creates others that wouldn't exist otherwise. The concern about free trade ending jobs in the United States as a whole is honestly quite baffling, America has a quite low uneployment rate as of now (source: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate), not much different from the lowest it has ever been.
People who are against free trade because it ends jobs in certain areas are not much different from ones who want to keep using coal as an energy source to keep jobs.
as sad as this is (and it really is), people on those countries would be working on bad conditions regardless of free trade, and in some cases free trade itself makes the conditions they work on less horrible (like in china, where the average rural worker has it much worse than people who work on industries, even if they also have it really bad). The issue here is not free trade, but the living conditions and underdevelopment of that country as a whole, and one can argue that trading with those countries improves their incomes (which it absolutely does), which slowly improves living conditions on them (again, China is a big exemple of this). Free trade brings advantages for both sides, and the losers are very few and localized in few areas and industries (e.g industry workers in the rusty belt), which can be fixed by the government improving wellfare and trying to renovate the job market in those areas through public (and private as well) investments, which would cost less than the country would get from the trades (through cheaper goods, higher gdp growth and the like). The problem with America is not the freetrade, but rather the lack of wellfare and investiments. Like, just so you know, the Scandinavian countries are very pro free trade (WAY more than America).
i'm not saying free trade is wholly bad--admittedly i don't know enough about it to conjure up an opinion more nuanced than, "we should be judging our agreements on a case-by-case basis." it might be true that nations whose workforce is treated poorly is better than no workforce at all. but that very exploitation should be seen as inexcusable. i mean, these are human lives we're talking about here, right? we can't control how china treats their factory workers, but we can surely influence it through trade practices and agreements, no? it's not only about the economic principles--getting stuff cheaper and divvying up work amongst nations, or political principles--becoming dependent on one another increases the likelihood of lasting peace, it should also include a social aspect of making sure workers are respected and safe. but it isn't. i personally don't really care if my goods are made in america or made in china--but at least a made in america tag includes (some) confidence that the people who made it didn't have to suffer.
i don't wanna sound social justice-y so i wanna emphasize that i think free trade done right is very good.
3 hours ago, Lushen said:I choose not to vote in this election, actually. I still wanted Trump to win over Hillary - but neither was my top pick. I don't believe in the whole 'everyone should vote' philosophy, I think that's just propaganda campaigners say to get their supporters to vote for them.
I'm choosing to refrain from further discussion in this thread. I knew when I posted I was going to be an outlier, I don't know why I didn't listen to my instincts. The fact is a forum dedicated to an anime series with lots of young people is going to have a VERY large democrat and liberal fanbase. That's just demographics.
excuse my confusion then. you went into little detail of the threats you received as a result of voting for trump, when in actuality you meant supporting trump.
your views on voting are dangerous, though, and also seemingly very conflicting. you place trust in these "talented" lawmakers to draft laws that the people support, but believe their campaigns to be merely vote-grabs?
let me be blunt: the american system is not as corrupt as people might think it is. so much shit is actually legal that it doesn't need to be! but there's good that comes from this, including the fact that votes matter. political involvement matters in this country, and that is a beautiful thing. so much so that it's taken completely for granted. to say that your vote doesn't matter is to throw away the very power granted to you by your own government.
2 hours ago, Lushen said:Here's the issue. It is VERY hard to argue as a conservative. You have to understand how frustrating it is to have 6 people throw crappy sources at you and be expected to go find crappy sources saying the opposite information.
For example, someone was posting sources from Harvard University. I understand the logic, they're a very reputable college and very high ranking in terms of research. However, if you don't think colleges, and Harvard more than most, are not bias you are totally ignorant. As someone who just graduated from college, I can tell you the people studying political science, leadership, (other liberal arts) are complete nutjobs. I had to take some humanity classes to graduate (engineering) and the teachers and all the other students in my class were ALL liberal.
You've all done research at some point, right? You have some school project and you have the task of finding a bunch of sources for your political argument. A couple google searches away you find a bunch of articles posted by god-knows-who and turn it in. Your teacher gives you an A. In fact, I've heard time and time again from teachers that other teachers should be more strict on where students get their sources from. I still get an A despite me not knowing who my source is or why he's credible.
Research is a joke. Don't believe me? Remember how Clinton won the election? Oh wait...
What I'm saying is, conservatives have a tough time arguing not because they don't have sources, but because half of conservatives believe journalism and research is a joke. And when they want to have a logical discussion, they get bombarded with a bunch of throwing articles at them with google.
To prove this, I'd like to show you a couple sources saying sources are BS -
http://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science
http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/liberal-bias-in-academia-is-destroying-the-integrity-of-research/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009365099026002003What? My sources aren't legitimate....ok I guess I'll only believe things colleges known to be very liberal say.
you are not a victim. it is not hard to argue as a conservative or a liberal. all most people do is fling shit at each other.
you're comparing undergraduate "research" assignments to actual funded science? any stance you take on the validity of research whilst comparing these two together is absolutely doomed to make no sense. real research is invaluable so long as the experiments are reproducible.
1 hour ago, Lushen said:The issue is which facts are present and how they're skewed can be very bias. All the republicans I know, including myself, refuse to answer telephone surveys. All the liberals I know, love being asked their opinion. Likewise, the internet is dominated by young people, so internet polls are infected with bad demographics as well. The electoral college polls were known to be extremely credible, and look what happened. The issue is, there is no perfect study group. You should also look up conscious bias vs non. We're both doing it right now. I'm not ignorant enough to pretend I'm not looking at your arguments thinking of how they could be wrong, not right and don't pretend you're not doing the same. It's subconscious, we can't help it. And when researchers are dominated by liberal people the research will have liberal bias. Surveys are NOT facts.
I'm sorry I really don't mean to be rude but I am a recent graduate for engineering. What makes a PHD candidate more qualified than a graduate. Aren't we the same right now at this moment? And saying that we need a sticky for the ignorant Trump supports just proves you have some flawed political bias. I wasn't talking about fake news. I may have sourced news articles but those are sourcing actual research articles, which was what I was talking about, not news. News, research, and journalism are all different.
@eclipseMay I ask which third party you voted for? Just out of curiositiy. I was considering third party because I didn't like either candidate, but I didn't like the third party candidates either. I miss politics before Obama. And no, I'm not blaming Obama, I blame the internet coming into fruition right around Obama's election and starting to have a major presence.
funny that you think research is a joke but cite a phenomenon that could only be known to (possibly) exist through experiment. the cognitive dissonance that you exhibit is alarming. you are cherrypicking when something is valid or invalid based off of how you feel about it going in. this is very frustrating because your arguments fall apart from the foundation. it's impossible to talk to someone who feels they are right and are unwilling to consider alternatives.
56 minutes ago, eclipse said:I'm not sure if there's any one political party out there that would well and truly represent everything I stand for. Thus, I vote for whoever I think would have a half-decent shot at not screwing the country up. . .or in the case of this past election, which candidate would do the least amount of damage.
I think a lot of the problem is that the "leechers" tend to be some sort of faceless other. I'm sure there's people out there who have the gall to tell someone else that they are worthless and deserve to die, to their face. However, I think the majority of those that hold this attitude wouldn't be able to do so - once that "other" is embodied in a human form, it's a lot harder to tell that person to drop dead.
well, the biggest issue with the conservative parties of the world is that they lack basic human decency when generalized to more than the people they know personally. they are unable to see the forest for the trees.
pulling oneself up by the bootstraps is a nice sentiment, but in reality is hogwash. conservatives aren't unwilling to help people, they're unwilling to help people they don't know. doesn't really matter if they have a face or not. one of my good friends, who at this point is annoyingly conservative, has paid for vacations, meals, alcohol, you name it, for me without expecting a dime because he knows i'm broke. he doesn't complain because he knows i'm broke. he's a great friend. the issue that he and many other conservatives fail to see is that there are millions and millions of people just like me. people who need help to get to a comfortable spot in life.
-
18 hours ago, Lushen said:
I'm fine with differing viewpoints, I'm just not fine with the black and white people who think the bill is absolute garbage. It was proposed by many talented people who have
I'm not going to change anyone's opinion on the health care bill, I wasn't trying too. I'm just tired of not being able to have a facebook account because people tell me to kill myself for voting for Trump (yea, all the time). There are two sides, if you think something one side proposes has no logic, you probably aren't looking at it close enough or are watching too much Stephen Colbert.
for someone who voted trump, the man who claimed to drain the swamp, you sure have a ton of trust in the very individuals who trump claims we have every reason to distrust. unfortunately congress spends much of their time...fundraising. for the next election cycle, of course. we have issues that are deeply rooted in the political system, and i don't think republicans are particularly bent on changing that (or dems).
colbert isn't even on anymore lol. is it possible, perhaps, that trump's policies really do not have depth or logic? why is the conclusion simply that if one can't see why his points make sense, one hasn't looked hard enough? this already assumes your side is correct--but what about the strong possibility that it isn't?
ya see, i don't think a lot of important legislature is subjective. how a government should run, what the structure of a government should be, etc, those are fit well within subjective political philosophy. but what a government ought to do is more objective to me: make it possible for all citizens to be safe, successful, and happy to the best of the state's ability. treating our climate like a political ballgame, juggling life and death for millions to create a narrative on us v them in healthcare, these are simply incorrect positions. whether morally or factually, holding these beliefs places you on the wrong side of not only what will eventually be history, but the wrong side of reality.
-
that's a surface level analysis of free trade. it breaks the number one rule of economics right off the bat: scarcity. it is absolutely impossible for everyone to be successful, because there aren't enough successful places to be. not everyone will get to do what they want for a host of reasons.
on the international level, getting to do things cheap because of a lack of worker protection laws puts you quite a ways ahead........
-
-
i haven't read much ff, but i've read better than that! haha, that is something that shouldn't have been published.
-
firstly, my definition of fan fiction is when a fan takes a story and manipulates it to fit whatever their creative minds can think up. so professionally made spin-offs or non-cannon stories aren't fan fiction to me.
fan fiction has the potential to be engaging and creative, but is often not. i feel like the reason for this is simple: why limit yourself to the framework of another's vision of a universe when you can create your own? it's certainly a creative outlet, and people are free to do it, but i don't think it's...like...a "printable" or "publishable" form of writing.
-
i was also looking at it from that perspective.
-
On 5/6/2017 at 1:39 AM, eclipse said:
It's to show that blaming the individual voters is a bad tactic. Those that didn't vote aren't going to suddenly feel the weight of their civic responsibility.
both parties should be blamed, but naturally we need to find the balance of blame such that political efficacy can be restored and that congress feels a fire under their ass. right now we've got maybe 20% of the american populace (probably much lower) that thinks their vote does anything (ie, those that vote in local/county/state elections), which is a disaster for democracy.
your particular outlook is alarming because it assumes we should absolve voters of all transgressions. this is simply not true. each and every citizen's lack of being informed is an additional way to limit your own power. if people actually cared, things would be far different than they are today. far different.
of course your (royal you) vote doesn't matter in the general election--it's statistically logical. it's you v. millions of voters. the best way to influence change is locally and letting that ripple out. letting congress know they have a population that is serious about their elections is an invaluable tool. it will improve our situation greater than i think i could ever imagine.
i mean let's be real: if i were a senator, why in the fuck would i care (instead of pretend) what people think if i knew they weren't going to try to do anything to keep me in line? but if my constituents were active at even a local level, i'd think long and hard before i make a decision that works for me and not those i represent.
-
yeah, i understand. thank you both for the prompt replies! :)
-
48 minutes ago, VincentASM said:
You can actually read an article in full by clicking the headline. However, I do realise it might not be obvious.
...oh. cool. :)
QuoteRight now, you can filter news by clicking the categories. Eg. Fire Emblem Echoes for Echoes news. But it's not immediately obvious when there's news as you have to click the filter to check. Which is kind of missing the point of news IMO.
I think a better idea would be to have actual filters to remove news per category (so you can blacklist Heroes news for example). But I don't know if Wordpress has that sort of feature.
that is a better idea!
the button itself is fine, but still makes it a minor hassle to find old news that i'd like to see (something like vestaria saga just as an example). although i guess that's precisely what the search function is for...
eh. looks like this issue is pretty much dealt with haha. thanks, vincent.
Any heavy metal listeners on this site
in Entertainment
Posted
not a huge metal fan past the 80s/90s. i'm another one of those classics guys.
sabbath, priest, maiden, rainbow. stuff like that. i also listen to bands that imitate that sound: the sword, freedom hawk, samsara blues experiment, etc.
i like slow, heavy stuff mostly. priest and maiden are exceptions (and a couple other bands from the 70s/80s/90s).