US Politics Mega-thread - Page 386

On August 14 2013 03:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:




Man, there's always an excuse isn't there. Oh he's not a real liberal. Oh he's so conservative. Oh our politics are so right wing compared to the people (lolwut?). Oh if he was white those racists would just love him because he's actually conservative.

Okay guys, keep telling yourselves that. Barack Obama is modern American liberalism, if it isn't socialist enough for you, then your problem is with American liberals and Americans in general for not being socialist enough. It's rather cheap and self-serving to pull out that kind of crap, though. God knows conservatives have been whining that George W. Bush was actually a liberal and not a real conservative for years, how well has that worked?

We don't get to say oh well this guy isn't really one of us so our beliefs shouldn't take a hit because of his incompetence. Well we do get to say it but no matter how satisfying it is to our egos it has little utility because it sounds like a cop-out, which it is.

On August 14 2013 23:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:


There is no true "consensus" on this topic. You're trying to make this sound like it's just as proven as climate change is, which is complete B.S.

On August 15 2013 01:58 DoubleReed wrote:


Surprisingly, evidence seems to go against this. For instance, during the Great Recession, violent crime went down, not up. Because violent crime has been consistently going down for some decades now. People have theories, but no one is quite sure why.

One study that was quite interesting was the study that linked environmental lead to violent crime. It actually correlated incredibly strongly with the timescale and geography. It's kind of weird to think of it as an environmental concern.

On August 15 2013 02:29 farvacola wrote:

Source please, in reference to the emboldened portion specifically.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) coined a new term to describe the push for climate change action: "environmental jihad."

In a fundraising email to supporters on Tuesday, Johnson hit back at the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), an environmental advocacy group, for a new ad campaign attacking the senator and other climate change deniers in Congress.

"The League of Conservation Voters is one of the many attack dog groups used by President Obama, the Democrats and the extreme left to weaken, defeat and silence conservatives," Johnson wrote in the email. "They use TV ads -- filled with smears -- because they work."

"The League of Conservation voters is not an organization with a balanced approach to a cleaner environment," he added. "They are an extreme left group on an environmental jihad."

Johnson also asked his supporters for an "urgent donation" to help him respond to the group's attack ads "with the truth." The senator issued his call for help in response to LCV's Monday announcement of the new ad campaign, but before the senator had even seen the ads themselves -- LCV said the ad targeting Johnson will be released on Wednesday.

You're extremely desperate to categorize people into ideological boxes, so that you can dismiss their arguments via guilty by association and throw around pre-built talking points and shaming tactics. Newsflash: not everyone fits inside your little boxes. You should stop projecting; just because you're a die-hard liberal who supports liberal ideology without question doesn't mean that everyone else is an ideologue too.

By "ideological", I mean it in the sense of "political ideology" (since we are, after all, discussing politics). In the American context of political debate, this refers to the set of ideas pushed by major political groups. I therefore use "ideology" in contrast to "rational and consistent", because the ideology of political groups often reflects post-hoc justification for practical political alliances rather than any rational, consistent set of ethical principles.

When you click on a thread that at some point talks about women's rights--you're bound to have an argument with sunprince. That's just the nature of the beast.

On August 15 2013 02:26 sunprince wrote:


There is a consensus within the criminological field that gun control has no established significant effect on rates of violent crime. Non-experts (including experts from other fields) might argue left and right while missing the facts or focusing on off-topic red herrings, but criminology settled this a while ago and continuously publishes studies to reinforce this (which, like studies proving climate change or evolution, are ignored by the skewed political debate).

On August 15 2013 06:22 DoubleReed wrote:


Dude, bro, amigo. It's me, DoubleReed. Sunprince, why are you acting like we're strangers? We've had plenty of conversations together. I'm not throwing categorizations willy-nilly. I've had several conversations with you.

On August 15 2013 06:22 DoubleReed wrote:


You're throwing around the "Liberal agenda" in exactly the same way. You are throwing me and the ACLU into a box and dismissing it in the exact same way that you're accusing me of. This blows my mind actually. I don't know how to describe this. You're being hypocritical about calling other people hypocritical. It's like totally fucking meta, man.

On August 15 2013 06:22 DoubleReed wrote:
But this is hilariously fucking arrogant, isn't it? Sunprince, the lord of consistency and rationality. Never makes a logical error, that one.

On August 15 2013 06:22 DoubleReed wrote:
Excuse me, aren't you the guy who claims that African Americans are genetically predisposed to lower socioeconomic status, and when asked for evidence, you said that yours should be the default position and it doesn't require evidence.

On August 15 2013 06:22 DoubleReed wrote:
Or perhaps this is the guy who said that Women were not historically oppressed? And when I called you out on the fact that your logic means that gays were also not historically oppressed you just dismissed it and moved on? Or when I called you out on the fact that it's obvious Motivated Skepticism on that matter? How about the fact that you openly defend the practice of victim-blaming? In fact in that whole thread, sunprince is just an remarkably great demonstration of Just-World Hypothesis, if anyone ever wants a case study.

On August 15 2013 06:22 DoubleReed wrote:
Theiving Magpie even made a wonderful post:



So don't tell me I put you in the fucking MRA box. You put yourself in the MRA box.

On August 15 2013 06:22 DoubleReed wrote:
And those are just the dealings I've had with you personally. You are not a God of rationality and consistency. You are prone to logical fallacies and errors just like the rest of us (especially it seems when it comes to feminism). And you have proven to be just as stubborn as any other human being when such errors are pointed out to you.

On August 15 2013 07:53 kwizach wrote:

Did you somehow miss my post? Studies on the topic show a significant correlation between firearm availability and number of homicides, as shown in the literature review I posted. In fact, your own study, which only summarily touches on international comparisons on the matter, recognizes that the existing literature can be considered suggestive (although it does not consider it conclusive).

National Academy of Sciences wrote:
Case-control studies show that violence is positively associated with firearms ownership, but they have not determined whether these associations reflect causal mechanisms. Two main problems hinder inference on these questions. First and foremost, these studies fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. For example, suicidal persons may, in the absence of a firearm, use other means of committing suicide. Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized. Second, reporting errors regarding firearms ownership may systemically bias the results of estimated associations between ownership and violence.

Ecological studies currently provide contradictory evidence on violence and firearms ownership. For example, in the United States, suicide appears to be positively associated with rates of firearms ownership, but homicide is not. In contrast, in comparisons among countries, the association between rates of suicide and gun ownership is nonexistent or very weak but there is a substantial association between gun ownership and homicide. These cross-country comparisons reflect the fact that the suicide rate in the United States ranks toward the middle of industrialized countries, whereas the U.S. homicide rate is much higher than in all other developed countries.

The committee cannot determine whether these associations demonstrate causal relationships. There are three key problems. First, as noted above, these studies do not adequately address the problem of self-selection. Second, these studies must rely on proxy measures of ownership that are certain to create biases of unknown magnitude and direction. Third, because the ecological correlations are at a higher geographic level of aggregation, there is no way of knowing whether the homicides or suicides occurred in the same areas in which the firearms are owned.

In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.

And in most of the conversations, you've been hell-bent on dismissing arguments through personal attacks rather than addressing the arguments themselves. A substantial part of that is by labeling your targets as a members of groups that are politically incorrect in liberal-leaning places like TL, and then using that label as self-evident 'proof' that they are wrong.

Every single on of the ACLU's official positions reflect liberal ideology. This includes hypocritical positions in which the ACLU sides against civil liberties, such as in the case of gun ownership (a personal freedom that ended up inverted in which side supports it in American politics due to political expediency), as well as cases such as the due process issue with university judicial policy I talked about in the previous post.

I've never claimed to be perfectly consistent, or perfectly rational, or perfectly logical. However, I do aspire to those things, whereas you blatantly throw them out the window when you engage in personal attacks in your attempt to "win" debates. Try actually engaging in reasoned debate.

You're proving my point by even doing it right now. Right now, you are resorting to personal attacks and utilizing shaming tactics by trying to hold up my previously made politically incorrect arguments as self-evident "proof" of how I'm a terrible, racist/sexist person, all instead of addressing the actual political discussion.

Yet another red herring, but I'll address this too. My claim was that women, as a class, have not been historically oppressed. Additionally, I didn't dismiss your argument on gays, I fully addressed and debunked it.

Criticizing feminism does not make one an MRA, just as criticizing sexism does not make one a feminist. MRAs do not have a monopoly on criticizing feminism, and I've indicated before that I while I agree with some MRA arguments, I generally consider them whiners.

Since you are familiar with me, you may have noticed that my nuanced positions often mean that I both agree with and disagree with most popular ideological camps. I similarly defend abortion rights or gun rights whenever the topic comes up, but that makes me neither a feminist nor an NRA gun nut.

Point out my logical fallacies and errors, instead of merely claiming that I make them. Show, don't tell.

TL;DR: Address my actual arguments instead of resorting to personal attacks, shaming tactics, and logical fallacies. Spend more time researching the topics being discussed, instead of searching through my post history to find mud to fling. You're not fooling me or anyone else here with your failure to engage in reasoned debate, except maybe yourself and your fellow liberal partisan ideologues who already agree with you.

On August 15 2013 08:54 sunprince wrote:


Such a correlation doesn't show causation, which is crucial here:



Emphasis mine.

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to halt gay marriages in the state, leaving opponents of same-sex weddings few – if any – legal options to stop the unions.

The brief, unanimous ruling tossed out a legal challenge by ban supporters without addressing their legal arguments in support of Proposition 8, a ballot measure passed by voter in 2008 that banned gay marriage.

Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that wants to end gay marriage, said the ruling does not end the debate in California. He called on lawmakers to ban gay marriage but declined to say whether a legal challenge will be filed.

"Though the current California officials are unwilling to enforce the state constitution, we remain hopeful that one day Californians will elect officials who will," he said.

Supporters of gay marriage were girding for a continued fight.

"By now, I suppose we know better than to predict that Prop 8 proponents will actually give up their fight," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. "But it's certainly fair to say that their remaining legal options are increasingly absurd."

On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:


The ACLU does not take a position on gun control.

On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:
Honestly, I always find this position baffling. Free Speech is liberal? Right to Privacy is liberal? Due Process is liberal? This sounds like something a hardcore liberal like me would say. You're basically saying that the opposite of the ACLU are a bunch of authoritarian freaks.

On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:


Except those same arguments you used for gays works precisely with women. Oppression of women has also been established. The Abrahamic Religion stuff applies just as much with women. You're addressing of the issue was simply "Nah, homosexuals were totally oppressed and it's not like women at all for some reason." Whoooosh! Right over your head.

On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:
And saying that "women didn't rise up therefore they weren't oppressed" is a blatant example of Just-World Hypothesis. For example. But in the course of that thread (and pretty much any other topic on feminism), you are prone to the assumption that women are responsible for their own misfortune. Just-World Hypothesis. And the funny part is when you say that anything else is just misogyny.

On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:


To be fair, I said you had an MRA-like stance. And quite frankly, even though I meant it as an insult, I'm surprised you took it as an insult.

On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:


I notice that you're asking opposite things of me here. Either I have to go further into your history to point out logical fallacies, or engage with the current debate (which is the ACLU defending the sexual assault stuff).

On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:
My point here is to explain why it's not worth to engage you in reasoned debate, because you are actually not a reasonable person. I suppose I could try again with the ACLU sexual assault stuff. Would you like that?

My other major point here is to entertain all the lovely folks out there. Hence the popcorn.

On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote:


Your are quoting a 2004 review (well published in book form but seemingly peer reviewed) that comes to the conclusion that current data is not enough to justify claiming a causative relation between gun control and crime. It admits that correlations exist but that more and better data needs to be gathered before claims of causation are made. Kwizatch also quotes a 2004 review which claims correlations between gun control and crime rate.

On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote:
Your first post claimed that "liberals ignore reality when it suits them" Citing ignoring criminology literature on the subject of gun control as an example. But as noted even in the review you yourself quoted there are correlations. Liberal politicians letting that correlation inform their position on gun control do the opposite of willfully ignoring the literature even if the authors of one particular review come to the conclusion there is currently (meaning 9 years ago) not enough data to support causation.

On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote:
You could argue that they should claim no position at all until more research has been done and more data gathered and I would disagree. In any case I would say that you had no basis for your original claim (namely that they deliberately ignore the literature.)

On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote:
You also claim that there is a strong consensus among economists that minimum wage lowers employment. Some time on google scholar seems to confirm that this was the case up until the mid 90s. After that more and more studies emerge claiming an insignificant relationship between minimum wage and employment level. The debate seems to be ongoing. Again it seems to me that the fact that there is an ongoing debate leaves no justification for your original claim that liberals willfully ignore an established scientific consensus on the topic.

On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote:
I am out of time or energy to go through the remaining claims in that post but my guess is that they are just as contentious as the ones above.

Yes, they do; you just failed to understand your own source. The ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right. In other words, they disagree that individual citizens have a right to own firearms.

That's not the argument I'm making, and you know it. The point I'm making is that wherever there is a debate between liberals and conservatives on an issue, the ACLU agrees with the liberal position. Neither liberals nor conservatives oppose free speech, right to privacy, or due process in general, but the devil is in the details and the ACLU takes the liberal side whenever there's a divide.

That's not what I said and you know it. I clearly addressed the point about gays here. I gave you an example of unjust treatment suffered by gays, which demonstrates why they were oppressed. I also pointed out the quality of life metric issue: women have higher quality of life by virtually all empirical metrics compared to men, which calls the notion of "oppression" into question. Regardless, you're missing the whole "burden of proof" issue in the larger discussion: you don't get to declare that women were oppressed without evidence. If you want to make that claim, then advance evidence to support it. I'm merely being charitable by giving you my counterevidence early.

Another strawman. My argument is that women not only didn't rise up, but they were happy to support the status quo. In other words, my argument is that women were content, not oppressed. Their behavior is simply evidence that they were content.

The real misogyny here is in your sexist assumption that women were so weak and pathetic that they allowed themselves to be oppressed without doing anything about it, unlike every other oppressed group in the history of the world. Does it make you feel like a big strong man every time you declare that women are too weak to defend themselves? Disgusting.

What I meant was, you should be sticking with the current debate, and calling out logical fallacies as they crop up. That's sorta what reasoned debate is: discussing the issue at hand, rather than dragging up unrelated discussions to try to engage in personal attacks.

If you don't consider me a reasonable person, then feel free to ignore my posts. If you're indeed replying to me purely for the purpose of personal attacks and trolling, as you claim, then that would be not just against TL rules, but the specific rules for this thread, would it not?

On August 15 2013 10:41 sunprince wrote:


"Seemingly peer reviewed"? My source is the National Academy of Sciences, which is quite a bit more legitimate than "seemingly peer reviewed".



You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. In the absence of any evidence for a causative link, it is absolutely wrong to act upon correlations. Without evidence of causation, correlation is meaningless except perhaps as an indicator that more research is needed.



Liberals typically claim that the availability of firearms causes violent crime and the reducing firearm availability via gun control will reduce violent crime. This is deliberately ignoring the literature, since there is no evidence for these claims.



Liberals have supported the minimum wage long before the mid 90s.



In other words, you don't actually have a legitimate argument.

On August 15 2013 10:53 DoubleReed wrote:


Sure. That's their interpretation. Again, you seem to take the position that a disagreement with you about something necessitates hypocrisy. I don't get it.

On August 15 2013 10:53 DoubleReed wrote:
However, they do not advocate one way or another on the second amendment. They have the position that it is not a civil liberty issue. You are saying that's a liberal position, but that's not saying anything either way about gun control laws. That is a neutral position.

And if that's not a neutral position. Then what is?

The ACLU wrote:
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

On August 15 2013 10:53 DoubleReed wrote:


You give me too much credit here. No, I have no idea what people mean when they say the ACLU is a liberal organization. All it sounds like to me is that you think conservatives just constantly want to overturn civil liberties whenever they can. While I sort of agree, that's just because I am a diehard liberal. I don't understand why a conservative or non-liberal would agree with that.

On August 15 2013 10:53 DoubleReed wrote:
Could you explain what details you mean? And pick something like Free Speech, which is more about the details rather than something like abortion.

On August 15 2013 10:53 DoubleReed wrote:


Once again, you are just being stubborn here. Abrahamic texts say plenty of misogynistic and oppressive things about women in them. If you are going to use that as evidence, then why the hell don't you use the same thing for women? Ooooooooh right.

The evidence for both cases is the same.

On August 15 2013 10:53 DoubleReed wrote:


"Women are to blame for their misfortune. And if you think women aren't to blame for their misfortune then you are a misogynist."

That is what I just read there. Okay? Maybe you didn't pick that up on the first time. Please address the Just-World Hypothesis accusation.

Funnily enough, now you're the one ignoring my point and declaring ad hominems.