|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not to bog this thread down in issue debates, but are people still talking about gun control? I thought the general consensus on this forum was that gun control was a red-herring issue that simply wasn't worth talking about, given the political cost & the fact that it's like the only civil rights issue the Republicans can still legitimately claim to be on the constitutional side of.
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:All the Devils Are Here is supposed to be a very thorough and accurate reporting and analysis of what happened, though I haven't read the book, but I've seen interviews with the authors about the book. I read that book on/off over the course of a few months this year and I can't recommend it enough if you are looking for a one stop shop that gives you an exhaustive examination of the mortgage bubble. The book covers the histories of the players and companies and laws that all came together to make this mess. The book never gets too dense nor too technical, however the sheer volume of information you need to digest makes the book best read in several doses rather than a single burn through. I read it concurrently with Griftopia and I've pitched the two books together with Griftopia as the intro/executive summary piece and this book as the meat and potatoes of the subject.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 17:04
|
|
|
Might be useful to have a list of common logical fallacies in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
Douginc posted:Seriously, thank you greatly for the exact quote. I cannot fathom how many voters believe that we need Biblical logic for our laws concerning homosexuality, which is merely one (maybe 2) mentions, yet completely ignore the many blatant socialist messages of altruism. As a counterpoint, many conservatives would argue that yes the poor and needy should be cared for, and heck some of them might even give generously, but believe it is not the state's role. Or are skeptical of the state's ability to provide said needs. I grew up in Republican circles, and ran across this a lot. Conservatives who would contribute large amounts of time and money to charities, but didn't want the state intervening on behalf of the needy. So in their mind they would be fulfilling Jesus command. Well actually none of us really fulfills Jesus command, but that's another discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:A wiki is a bad idea because it's going to be nothing but trying to win the wiki. I.e. edit wars over "Israel is a modern Third Reich" vs "Israel is the lone democratic nation in a sea of monsters" and the like, or trying to fill it with "This position is wrong, see:" and the like. I agree, I don't want this to be ruined by a few nut jobs who have agendas. It should be sort of a fact check style setup in terms of editorial setup but about common arguments/themes. ReindeerF posted:I'd just set up a Quora/StackOverflow style deal and stick to questions and linked sources. Wikis are great, but a tiny summary and a source would be a great way to avoid the wiki problem of people arguing about phrasing and many people not wanting to learn how to edit a wiki or take the time to do it. There are a number of wordpress themes that are Q&A based, but maybe there's a specifically good app for this. Wordpress theme might be decent. It kind of sounds like this might end up being a bit larger than install theme and go. I wonder, if maybe we could just have a thread, say this one, where the website acts like a permanent OP and people in the thread can discuss/update the information. That way when a consensus is reached on a certain topic, like in threads the OP get's updated with useful info. But it also should be colorful, well designed and easy to read. I don't eventually want a 60+pg wall of words that looks like a word doc, as I see this sort of info dump as easily ignorable, like you see in many threads in D&D. Like I said, my offer for some sort of reward/payment still stands, I'm really interested in trying to start something like this. Morphix fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Oct 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
Erkenntnis posted:Might be useful to have a list of common logical fallacies in the OP. I'm not sure I agree with that, it seems like it would promote even more people to just poo poo out perceived fallacies without understanding them to try to end debates. Knowing logical fallacies without knowing logic or debate does nothing to increase discourse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
This would be a wonderful resource and I could definitely see myself using it frequently. My question is: Would it be better to use a Wiki-style page to organize all of this information?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
The OP's been updated with roughly-categorized links. Posting more is always helpful, so try to format them the way internaut did so I can add things to the OP more easily.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not to bog this thread down in issue debates, but are people still talking about gun control? I thought the general consensus on this forum was that gun control was a red-herring issue that simply wasn't worth talking about, given the political cost & the fact that it's like the only civil rights issue the Republicans can still legitimately claim to be on the constitutional side of. It might surprise you to learn not everyone is American and we tend to have different beliefs on gun control. If you have studies that show the huge gun homicide rate in the US compared to other countries is a "red herring issue" then post them. I'm not interested in getting into a debate in this thread but I would like to collect more studies and data to have a better informed opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
internaut posted:It might surprise you to learn not everyone is American and we tend to have different beliefs on gun control. If you have studies that show the huge gun homicide rate in the US compared to other countries is a "red herring issue" then post them. I'm not interested in getting into a debate in this thread but I would like to collect more studies and data to have a better informed opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
internaut posted:It might surprise you to learn not everyone is American and we tend to have different beliefs on gun control. If you have studies that show the huge gun homicide rate in the US compared to other countries is a "red herring issue" then post them. I'm not interested in getting into a debate in this thread but I would like to collect more studies and data to have a better informed opinion. By "red herring issue" I was referencing the fact that the gun control issue is used (in the US) primarily as a way to motivate right-wing voters; I was referring to politics, not statistics. A better term might have been "wedge issue." In interviews after the 2000 election, Bill Clinton admitted that one major reason Gore lost was that union voters consistently fell for right-wing anti-gun-control get out the vote propaganda and voted their guns over their unions. Similarly, there's data that gun control opponents tend to vote strongly based on that single issue, whereas gun control supporters tend to be lukewarm on the issue; it isn't decisive for them, whereas it is for right-wingers. The net result is that pushing gun control is just a losing issue for American democrats; it encourages Republicans to vote against them more than it encourages fellow lefties to vote for them. I've looked just now for the source articles on this, but can't find them right now; perhaps someone else can help me out. I honestly thought the "forum consensus" on gun issues was essentially "don't bother with them" at this point, so I was surprised to see someone posting gun-control related data. Even bringing it up just hands ammunition (pun intended) to Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I've looked just now for the source articles on this, but can't find them right now; perhaps someone else can help me out. I honestly thought the "forum consensus" on gun issues was essentially "don't bother with them" at this point, so I was surprised to see someone posting gun-control related data. Even bringing it up just hands ammunition (pun intended) to Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
Interlude posted:Well are we trying to limit this thread to topics on which the majority of D&D agrees or not? Anyone can just post a bunch of links about a particular topic and let the reader decide but that doesn't seem to be the point of this. It would be absurd to only post links to debate resources and data that support what the majority of D&D already believes, whatever that may be. Posting links to debate resources of all kinds can be useful to different people. If you have any studies or data about gun control I for one would be interested to read them. I'm not interested in how politically toxic it is to discuss in American political discourse (the same is true for drug decriminalization and how the War on Terror inspires more terrorism). Here are some debate resources if you need to argue with certain people: How to talk to a climate skeptic, contains responses to various climate skeptic claims with links to evidence A non-libertarian FAQ, contains critiques of various libertarian positions Liberalism FAQ, contains arguments for many liberal positions such as "personhood does not begin at conception"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
internaut posted:It would be absurd to only post links to debate resources and data that support what the majority of D&D already believes, whatever that may be. Posting links to debate resources of all kinds can be useful to different people. I completely disagree with this point, D&D and the forums in general act as a great filter of information. People love to tear apart people who mis-quote and mis-characterize an issue, there is obvious benefit to this self-correcting within the community. I'm not envisioning a be-all-end all stop for all things people could possibly 'debate' about, that's what the internet and research are for. What's good about this is that most of the work is already being done, constantly, and it's always being updated through amazing OPs. And on the second point in regards to all sorts of resources, you risk watering down your journalistic authority by tackling issues that aren't fully addressed like they get in some of these mega-threads, where literally every possible avenue is explored and eventually a consensus is reached. The trolls give up their contrarian fun and we can move onto the next issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
Here are some studies on Israel/Palestine since that section of the OP is empty. Lancet study on the humanitarian crisis in Israeli occupied territories Human Sciences Rsearch Council report on how the Israeli-occupied territories meet the legal definition of apartheid I hope this study showing that focusing police efforts on removing illegal guns reduces gun crime will meet ~D&D approved~ requirements. Better gun law enforcement rather than further restrictions on gun supply reduce gun crime
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Some past SA threads with informative OPs. Zeigeist's thread on a Tim Wise article, collects a huge amount of studies showing the racial disparity in the US. Download article Story's thread in defence of affirmative action policies Story's thread deflating the myth of the American Dream. Link to full study on intergenerational social mobility wigga please's thread in opposition to privatization policies Unfortunately wigga please's thread has a lack of scientific studies on the effects of privatization on prices / quality of life, I'd appreciate resources on this topic. The only studies I can quickly find document the obvious facts that privatization leads to an increase in the profitability of the company and that countries with more privatization have more total stock capitalization. There don't seem to be many studies that examine the impact of privatization on consumers rather than stockholders, which is odd since I thought that's what the study of economics was primarily focused on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Oh you mean Discussion & Debate, not Dungeons & Dragons (a fine game if I do say so myself). My bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
Davish Krail posted:The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion How could that article ever be used to convince someone that abortion is morally okay? Take one belief you hold seriously. Let's say you're a committed pacifist. Would a list of dubious anecdotes about alleged pacifists being hypocritical change you into a hawk? It's ludicrous. It doesn't speak to the topic of abortion's acceptability in the slightest. It's just a smug ad hominem against everyone with opposing beliefs on this issue. I'm sure in pro-life circles they pass around cherished articles that describe how nefarious and other those conniving choicers are. It's all echo-chamber intellectual narcissism, whichever side is doing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Bob Nudd posted:How could that article ever be used to convince someone that abortion is morally okay? Take one belief you hold seriously. Let's say you're a committed pacifist. Would a list of dubious anecdotes about alleged pacifists being hypocritical change you into a hawk? It's ludicrous. It doesn't speak to the topic of abortion's acceptability in the slightest. It's just a smug ad hominem against everyone with opposing beliefs on this issue. It's useful because it points out the rank hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement. If people who are against abortion enough to actually picket abortion clinics were to then have abortions themselves or encourage their daughters, wives, and other female loved ones to get abortions, then it's pretty much the most classic example of hypocrisy and a version of the special pleading fallacy. The overall purpose is that it shows how dishonest it is for anti-abortion people to consider abortion to be murder. If something is murder, then it should be considered murder no matter who commits the act, it should not be murder just for everyone else but you and your loved ones. These hypocrites are basically arguing for special dispensation for their own abortions while not giving that same consideration to all other women. To bring it back to your example about pacifists, that article is analogous to having groups of pacifists who are not categorical pacifists, but rather are only pacifists when it comes to nations other than their own. Thus, they discourage and rail against all forms of war and conflict when committed by other nations, but they are hawkish when it comes to wars perpetuated by their own home nation. These hypocritical pacifists want special consideration for the wars and conflicts started and/or continued by their home nation, but are against applying the same standards to all warfare and conflict from other nations. Another version of this is in regards to terrorism. There are plenty of people who claim to be against terrorism and/or religious violence but then spend time making excuses, shifting rhetorical focus, and playing with semantics to excuse terrorism and religious violence they "like" or at least agree with. Take US Congressman Peter King. He has repeatedly targeted Muslims and lambasted them as either being terrorists or supporting terrorism directly or indirectly, going as far as to set up multiple congressional hearings into radicalism in American mosques and Muslim communities, which are basically McCarthyist witch hunts against American Muslims. King is a rank hypocrite because he has supported the IRA for decades, including publicly promoting them, directly visiting and associating with their leaders, and helping raise money for them through NORAID. He has explicitly claimed that there are no parallels between the conflict in Northern Ireland and other forms of terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism against the US. Pointing out this hypocrisy is probably not going to convince people like Peter King, anti-abortion advocates, or hardcore doves and hawks to change their positions, but it may help in winning over people on the fence or who are not fully informed about these subjects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
internaut posted:Here are some studies on Israel/Palestine since that section of the OP is empty. In this section, add the link to PCPSR. It's the main polling institution in the Palestinian Territories (most of its research are joint european-american-palestinian-israeli projects), and is one of the most valuable sources of information on this subject. They also do parallell polling in Israel together with what I think is Tel Aviv university (through the Ford Foundation?). Anyway, it's the best source if you want to know what Palestinians and Israelis really think and believe (though not exact science of course, as Condi Rice once experienced).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 10:34
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:It's useful because it points out the rank hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement. Firstly, I appreciate your measured response. I think this quote highlights my point though. Hypocrisy exists in every movement, it being an integral part of the human condition. Human failings do not in any way affect the truth or validity of an argument. Let's say there's a debate about the existence of God going on: sooner or later, someone on the religion side will bring up the many atrocities committed by the Godless Russian communists. It's a fallacy worthy of a six year old: as if Stalin being nasty means that God must exist. Equally, it would be entirely assine to reject left economics because Lavrentiy Beria was so depraved. Arguing for a fairer distribution of wealth does not mean you defend the GULAG, as they are entirely seperate issues. Equally, advancing the view that unborn life is worthy of protection does not mean you are an apologist for the actions of everyone who has ever shared that opinion. It's quite clear why the abortion article was originally posted, and why it's so popular around here - it would be really fun to read if you are pro-choice. Plenty of othering, a reassuring sense of moral superiority, and grist to the mill of confirmation bias. Of course, all those characteristics are also why it's entirely useless for creating a genuine dialogue. The same thing happens in every debate and around every contentious issue. Each side preaches endlessly to it's own choir. For religious folk, words like God, Bible and Jesus are very powerful, so they can't resist using them all the time in their outreach literature. What they don't realise, of course, is that type of language has absolutely no traction with their target audience. I'm reminded, in fact, of trying to learn Irish in school from books written entirely in Irish, which again shows how little empathy authors can have for the audience they are trying to reach. I emphasise that I'm not trying to start a derail here about the rights and wrongs of abortion. I picked the example to draw out what it means to genuinely engage with your opponents, and to point out the futility of wallowing in the comforting cliches of your own side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 11:46
|
|
|
Maybe the OP could use some links about how people actually form beliefs and then act on them? In Europe, North America and the Middle East we are seeing the formation of huge popular movements on both the left and right that seek to draw large chunks of the population into some sort of activism. I've posted a link below to a really excellent book about abortion that examines the actual relationship between political ideology and joining a social movement. I'll illustrate why I think this is relevant by responding to another poster in this thread: Bob Nudd posted:Firstly, I appreciate your measured response. I think this quote highlights my point though. Hypocrisy exists in every movement, it being an integral part of the human condition. Human failings do not in any way affect the truth or validity of an argument. Let's say there's a debate about the existence of God going on: sooner or later, someone on the religion side will bring up the many atrocities committed by the Godless Russian communists. It's a fallacy worthy of a six year old: as if Stalin being nasty means that God must exist. What you are saying is fair as far as it goes, but its built around the fallacious assumption that the main point of that article is to actually convince pro-Lifers or fence sitters. I see these kinds of criticisms in D&D a lot: "X action won't convince anyone who isn't already convinced, so what's the point?" I think what is useful about that article is that it demonstrates how the abortion issue isn't based around some kind of rational calculus. People don't form their beliefs (either pro-life or pro-choice) after doing a rational assessment of the situation, rather they tend to be drawn into the movement based on social connections with people who are already involved. The Making of pro-life activists: how social movement mobilization works by Ziad W. Munson, pp. 5-6 posted:Scholars typically treat the role of beliefs in social movements in one of three different ways. The standard approach is to look at the role of ideas in social movements under the rubric of frame analysis (Snow et al. 1986; Snow and Benford 1992; Benford and Snow 2000), in which the focus lies on the ties between the beliefs of the individual and the ideology of the movement. Ideas are seen as possessing mobilizing potential to the extent that they can be made to resonate with the beliefs of potential recruits. The second way is to see ideas as the central offering of a social movement: a social movement's core task is to reflect and affirm the identities and beliefs of its members. This view is common in new social movement theory (Inglehart 1977; Melucci 1989; Larana, Johnston, and Gusfield 1994). Rationalist explanations offer still a third approach, incorporating ideas and beliefs as a component of motivation. Beliefs are the impetus for people to get involved; activism is a way in which people express and act on their ideas (Lichbach 1994, Mason 1984, Muller and Opp 1986). Seeking to win the abortion debate through a calm and rational argument that gradually changes the minds of the other side or that slowly convinces the fence sitting middle to become pro-choice is a huge diversion of energy and resources. I'm not saying that no time should be spent on convincing people, but I am suggesting that your implicit suggestion, i.e. that we need to focus on constructive dialogue and the impartial sharing of ideas, is based on a false notion of how people actually develop beliefs and then act on them. That article is useful precisely because it warns us that prioritizing calm and rational debate at the expense of other tactics may actually be a huge waste of time and energy. Leftwing ideology tends to come loaded with all these childish humanist assumptions about how people act and make decisions. We need to start dispensing some of that naive utopianism so that we can actually get traction on the social and economic issues confronting society. Also: Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not to bog this thread down in issue debates, but are people still talking about gun control? I thought the general consensus on this forum was that gun control was a red-herring issue that simply wasn't worth talking about, given the political cost & the fact that it's like the only civil rights issue the Republicans can still legitimately claim to be on the constitutional side of. Many of us are not American and do not consider gun ownership a "civil right". I also find the idea that gun control is just some kind of "red herring" bizzare in light of what happened in Arizona and Norway this year. In the Arizona case Loughner was able to use a 33 round magazine to spray into the crowd. It was when he finally had to reload that people in the crowd rushed him and took his gun away. Those clips had been illegal under the 1994 assault weapon ban, but when the ban expired they went back on the market, and they probably played a big role in inflating his number of kills. I mean, I don't want to derail the thread or whatever, but the idea that limiting the ability of random citizens to kill dozens or hundreds of people on a whim doesn't seem like a 'red herring'. At the very least you should take this post as an indication that there isn't as much consensus on gun control here as you think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
I'm looking for a diagram of circles showing the amount of 'real' physical trade in the world, the amount of speculative investing and the amount of currency trading. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 15:06
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:It's useful because it points out the rank hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement. Nobody undecided is ever actually convinced by the argument "the other side are hypocrites" nor should they be. Its not actually an effective argument and only resonates with people already on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nobody undecided is ever actually convinced by the argument "the other side are hypocrites" nor should they be. Its not actually an effective argument and only resonates with people already on the other side. I think it was instrumental in the repeal of Prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nobody undecided is ever actually convinced by the argument "the other side are hypocrites" nor should they be. Its not actually an effective argument and only resonates with people already on the other side. How often do you think rationally convincing someone in an argument actually sways a modern political debate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:I think it was instrumental in the repeal of Prohibition. Do you have any documentation of this? I've always been under the impression that Prohibition ended because it was virtually impossible to enforce it and the attempts to do so were creating huge amounts of business for organized crime, but admittedly I know very little about the nuances of the debate surrounding Prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
quote:Nobody undecided is ever actually convinced by the argument "the other side are hypocrites" nor should they be. I would think showing/proving to someone who's undecided that one party is hypocritical when it comes to their beliefs would sway quite a few people. Who wants to side with people who don't follow their own beliefs but rather pick and choose when those beliefs are convenient for them? PTBrennan fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Oct 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
Helsing posted:How often do you think rationally convincing someone in an argument actually sways a modern political debate? Essentially never, or vanishingly close to it. As has been pointed out on this board many times, you're generally trying to convince people on the fence who are listening. If you're in a debate, people have a personal "ego" stake in things, and will almost never admit they've made a mistake, even if you absolutely crush them with proof(the Cefte Effect). You could make the argument, I guess, that such a tactic might turn off undecided lurkers/listeners, but I don't agree that's the case with the essay in question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
Ah exhaustive research paper for when idiots try and tell you that poor people getting loans("predatory borrowing") caused the GFC of 2008: Part 1 Part 2 CBO paper on why tort reform won't magically fix the healthcare system in the US. Mother Jones compilation of charts on wealth inequality How to talk to a climate skeptic I am looking through my links for some more useful ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
Helsing posted:How often do you think rationally convincing someone in an argument actually sways a modern political debate? I mean its not convincing to anyone except the convinced. Emotionally or logically. It's one of those arguments people think is a lot more effective than it actually is. It's not an effective method for convincing undecided people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean its not convincing to anyone except the convinced. Emotionally or logically. It's one of those arguments people think is a lot more effective than it actually is. That doesn't actually answer his question, it sidesteps it. If you believe it won't convince anyone but the convinced, that may be true, but you're unlikely to be convincing a debate opponent with any argument, let alone argument from hypocrisy. quote:It's not an effective method for convincing undecided people. That's your opinion. I disagree, and similar arguments have made me reconsider opinions on other issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Also:
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean its not convincing to anyone except the convinced. Emotionally or logically. It's one of those arguments people think is a lot more effective than it actually is. It's not an effective method for convincing undecided people. Why are you assuming that its primary purpose is to convince the other side? Rationally convincing people is a far smaller part of politics than many people on these forums want to accept. Besides, that document could be tactically useful for pro-choicers because it helps to illustrate the pro-life mindset. Politics is mostly about organization and mobilization. Convincing large numbers of people to join your side by making logical and convincing arguments is, by and large, a misuse of resources. I'm not saying its totally worthless, but it really isn't half as significant as people make it out to be. Waco Panty Raid posted:Hey, the 1994 AWB didn't make possession or even sale of large/normal capacity magazines illegal, it just legally prevented any more being sold to non-law enforcement. All the ones then-currently on the market were unaffected except for a rise in cost for some models. So unless you are arguing that spending a few extra bucks would have prevented him from acquiring the 33 rounder, you're pretty much full of poo poo and this is precisely why gun control probably shouldn't be in the OP at all. No, I'm arguing that the high capacity magazines should be illegal. So should handguns and automatic rifles, frankly. I don't have much knowledge of the AWB so I'm basing that claim about high capacity clips being illegal on a newspaper article I read. If the AWB didn't actually ban those rounds outright then thats a good example of how the legislation wasn't strong enough. I really have no stake in defending the AWB as a specific piece of policy and I think its telling that your counter argument was basically just a nitpick rather than any kind of substantial criticism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 06:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nobody undecided is ever actually convinced by the argument "the other side are hypocrites" nor should they be. Its not actually an effective argument and only resonates with people already on the other side. He....literally just said that the point of this thread is not to collect materials to convince people, but to provide general evidence and data for reference? I don't think anyone here thinks that logic, data and real world evidence will convince anyone of anything; That's not the point of collecting it. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Oct 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 08:08
|
|
|
I didn't see Helsing actually mention it, but a great read for me has always been: The Conservative Nanny State It's main use is to get out of thinking about policy through the traditional pro-corporate conservative narrative, and to reframe your thinking. Helsing ran a great thread on it a while back before was out on a probation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 09:01
|
|
|
Has anyone got a good resource to quickly refute 9/11 truthers' arguments? I like this clip by Noam Chomsky saying why it's a waste of time to even consider the theories, but it'd be nice to have something I can toss back at people who start going on about the melting point of steel or evidence being shipped off to China or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 09:24
|
|
|
Helsing posted:No, I'm arguing that the high capacity magazines should be illegal. So should handguns and automatic rifles, frankly. I don't have much knowledge of the AWB so I'm basing that claim about high capacity clips being illegal on a newspaper article I read. If the AWB didn't actually ban those rounds outright then thats a good example of how the legislation wasn't strong enough. I really have no stake in defending the AWB as a specific piece of policy and I think its telling that your counter argument was basically just a nitpick rather than any kind of substantial criticism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Helsing posted:Many of us are not American and do not consider gun ownership a "civil right".
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 14:50
|
|