|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Looks like Nate Silver made a big oopsie for the country.
|
On November 03 2016 16:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Sarcasm gone wrong. + Show Spoiler +Thought it amusing considering the talk on Silver and probability.
rofl that is going to be pretty funny if Trump wins
|
On November 03 2016 13:46 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 12:48 farvacola wrote:I doesn't have to be a big mess if Democrats seize upon the coming election mandate in pushing for single payer or further exchange controls. If Obamacare is left alone or outright repealed, yes, big mess indeed. i skimmed the article and i have no idea how economist is getting the "this is a mess" - maybe because of the use turmoil? i mean, the author is right on all counts but this is all stuff people know and conclusions that have already been reached. i've said before, any big new federal program has some hiccups. we didn't get social security, medicare, etc. right on the first try, and these programs need tune ups over time. however, the difference is that back in the day both parties would get together for the common good and say "hey you know we need to make some adjustments to make this work". instead, we have an intransigent GOP that's tried to repeal the ACA god knows how many times and has offered nothing remotely reasonable as an alternative, let alone an improvement.
How is it not a mess as it is right now? And I am not saying repealing or replacing with sth better is an option - because that sth has not been discussed. I can go ahead and say that it should not have been there in the first place. take the selective contracting as an example, it was before the ACA that the insurers had done it aggressively which ended up with the whole utilization management a mess. The same thing is happening with the ACA. ironically you have less options for people to choose with the expansion of marketplaces. I was hoping the ACA marketplace expansion was going to make the private market more standardized but it turns out it is going to twist the functioning of the whole system. Still too soon to tell because it has been there for only three years but I do have a bad feeling about this.
|
I wish i could go back to the beginning of the season, put some money on the cubbies.
Looks like Nate Silver made a big oopsie for the country.
Certainly ain't the first time.
|
On November 03 2016 06:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:50 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:46 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:34 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:31 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:23 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:20 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:18 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:16 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:08 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Being coerced by your own moral compass preventing you from standing by and doing nothing when a figure like Drumpf threatens the basic civil rights of immigrants, Muslims, minorities, gays, lesbians, trans people and so forth is not really coercion. It's just being a good person. 1) trump has no chance 2) a coerced choice is not a free choice. you can tell me that voting for clinton is the only moral choice but you can't then tell me it's a free choice I dont follow this.. you're predicating your second point on the idea that by virtue of a choice being moral, it becomes the only choice ? That doesnt seem right. well if you want to be radical about it, there is no such thing as coercion right? even w a gun pointed at my head i can always choose the gun. Actually the only thing thats radical about this is your leap from morality to gun in terms of what determines the choice. I dont see the equivalence here in the argument you are making. equivalence to what? i said "coerced" not a literal gun to the head. because you are so obtuse ill give you a metaphor. if there is only one moral option the choice is coerced by a ghostly gun pointed at your immortal soul. you are only "free" to choose the moral option or choose spiritual death I mean I dont get it still, this is a pretty stupid metaphor, you are saying that an immoral decision will kill your soul/spirit when that really isnt the case. People make immoral decisions more often than they change their pyjamas. I dont see how voting for Drumpf even with the knowledge that the decisions to do so maybe immoral is spiritual death. Anyway lets leave it, I think your reasoning is stupid and we can agree to disagree on it. do you not know what the word coercion means or are you just playing the idiot? Slow down bro, just because i dont agree with your befuddling idea that someone who is making a moral choice is being "coerced" and not just being a normal human being you dont have to occupy some higher intellectual high ground that doesnt exist. Please spare me the "coercion is coercion" and none of us are free bullshit you are peddling. Im out, this discussion is absurd. please spare me the "coercion is not coercion" nitwit. i only occupy higher intellectual ground because you prefer walking in a ditch ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zRVhP5g.png) User was warned for this post
At the risk of prolonging a profoundly stupid argument, your dictionary definition does not support your point. Your moral compass is fundamentally you. You having to choose between two shitty choices is not coercion. I recently had to pay 1000 euros to the real estate agent in order to rent the flat we just moved into. We were in a flat, but it had bed bugs. Our choices were to live with bed bugs, or pay 1000 euros to the real estate agent and move to this new flat. There was no coercion. Just a shit deal.
The us election is a shitty choice (for most, I guess, some really like one of the two candidates). Nobody is coercing you to vote for HTC. You are simply restricted in your choices, and one choice is awful.
|
On November 03 2016 08:01 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 07:32 Doodsmack wrote:I’ve been covering Trump since 1985, when I worked for The New York Times’ women’s pages. He endorsed one of my books, about real estate, and was a character in two more of them. He talked to me about sex and substances and the substance of the arena in which he made his name, real estate. I published all of it. In 1999, he told me that in 1995 he’d been worth about negative $900 million. I didn’t have the chops to think to ask for his tax returns.
I also wrote a book about the modeling industry and heard stories about Trump but didn’t write them because he wasn’t important in it, just another rich guy buying a date farm, perhaps for his friends, perhaps for himself. This wasn’t pejorative, just how things were. (Leonardo DiCaprio, at the height of his “Pussy Posse” fame, thanked Trump for offering “one-stop date-shopping.”)
Now, those stories seem to matter more, and so I spoke in recent days with two Trump pals, both reluctant to talk about the man they once partied hard with who’s now the Republican nominee to be president of the United States. In that capacity, Trump has vowed to sue people who have come forward in recent weeks with allegations about his bad behavior.
One of the two men I spoke with, a fashion photographer, requested anonymity because he has fathered several children since his Trump days and doesn’t want his past dredged up. “There’s no upside for me,” he says.
The other man… well, you’ll read his words. Both confirmed that Trump, as I’ve reported, used to host parties in suites at the Plaza Hotel when he owned it, where young women and girls were introduced to older, richer men. This is hardly aberrant behavior in the modeling business. Indeed, it is standard operating procedure.
But both men also put Donald Trump in the room with cocaine, very young women and underage girls, and rich, old men there to—pardon my language, but if the Times can say pussy on its front page, I can say this—fuck them.
I’m sorry, Ivanka, I really am, because your mother raised you well and I can’t blame you for supporting your father (even if he did give—at the least—his blessing when you were 15 and signed on as a model yourself with Elite, the hard-partying high-end agency founded by notorious teen-fucker John Casablancas) but here’s the sad truth: Your dad’s not a dog. He’s a pig. The Daily Beast ok. Where is the mention of brutal rape? Also this source is wonky as fuck. If Breitbart or some shitter right wing BS website had some washed up old model (who talked highly of Trump in the article) and an anonymous source claiming Hillary touched little boys, would you automatically believe it? I wouldn't. I hate coming across as defending greasy Trump, but this whole culture of automatically convicting somebody you dislike of horrible things based on literal nothing sources is ridiculous.
Sex with a minor is, by definition, reaper. It doesn't have to be brutal. It doesn't even have to be without consent, because the reason a minor is classified a minor is because they are deemed too young to be able to consent (or at least, for that consent to mean anything). And thus sex with a minor is ALWAYS without consent, and therefore tape.
E: wow, my autocorrect really doesn't like the word "rape". Gonna leave the post as is, because it's quite funny :p
|
On November 03 2016 18:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 08:01 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 03 2016 07:32 Doodsmack wrote:I’ve been covering Trump since 1985, when I worked for The New York Times’ women’s pages. He endorsed one of my books, about real estate, and was a character in two more of them. He talked to me about sex and substances and the substance of the arena in which he made his name, real estate. I published all of it. In 1999, he told me that in 1995 he’d been worth about negative $900 million. I didn’t have the chops to think to ask for his tax returns.
I also wrote a book about the modeling industry and heard stories about Trump but didn’t write them because he wasn’t important in it, just another rich guy buying a date farm, perhaps for his friends, perhaps for himself. This wasn’t pejorative, just how things were. (Leonardo DiCaprio, at the height of his “Pussy Posse” fame, thanked Trump for offering “one-stop date-shopping.”)
Now, those stories seem to matter more, and so I spoke in recent days with two Trump pals, both reluctant to talk about the man they once partied hard with who’s now the Republican nominee to be president of the United States. In that capacity, Trump has vowed to sue people who have come forward in recent weeks with allegations about his bad behavior.
One of the two men I spoke with, a fashion photographer, requested anonymity because he has fathered several children since his Trump days and doesn’t want his past dredged up. “There’s no upside for me,” he says.
The other man… well, you’ll read his words. Both confirmed that Trump, as I’ve reported, used to host parties in suites at the Plaza Hotel when he owned it, where young women and girls were introduced to older, richer men. This is hardly aberrant behavior in the modeling business. Indeed, it is standard operating procedure.
But both men also put Donald Trump in the room with cocaine, very young women and underage girls, and rich, old men there to—pardon my language, but if the Times can say pussy on its front page, I can say this—fuck them.
I’m sorry, Ivanka, I really am, because your mother raised you well and I can’t blame you for supporting your father (even if he did give—at the least—his blessing when you were 15 and signed on as a model yourself with Elite, the hard-partying high-end agency founded by notorious teen-fucker John Casablancas) but here’s the sad truth: Your dad’s not a dog. He’s a pig. The Daily Beast ok. Where is the mention of brutal rape? Also this source is wonky as fuck. If Breitbart or some shitter right wing BS website had some washed up old model (who talked highly of Trump in the article) and an anonymous source claiming Hillary touched little boys, would you automatically believe it? I wouldn't. I hate coming across as defending greasy Trump, but this whole culture of automatically convicting somebody you dislike of horrible things based on literal nothing sources is ridiculous. Sex with a minor is, by definition, reaper. It doesn't have to be brutal. It doesn't even have to be without consent, because the reason a minor is classified a minor is because they are deemed too young to be able to consent (or at least, for that consent to mean anything). And thus sex with a minor is ALWAYS without consent, and therefore tape. E: wow, my autocorrect really doesn't like the word "rape". Gonna leave the post as is, because it's quite funny :p
You are wrong actually, at least for Europe. Sex with a minor is not rape. Its sex with a minor. This fellony is proscribed by a different article in Criminal laws than rape.
DISCLAIMER: When I say Europe it is an educated guess. My opinion is based on Croatian law, and giving our law is strongly influenced by German and other Romanic derived laws, I presume the said legislature is the case for most european countries.
|
On November 03 2016 19:46 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 18:03 Acrofales wrote:On November 03 2016 08:01 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 03 2016 07:32 Doodsmack wrote:I’ve been covering Trump since 1985, when I worked for The New York Times’ women’s pages. He endorsed one of my books, about real estate, and was a character in two more of them. He talked to me about sex and substances and the substance of the arena in which he made his name, real estate. I published all of it. In 1999, he told me that in 1995 he’d been worth about negative $900 million. I didn’t have the chops to think to ask for his tax returns.
I also wrote a book about the modeling industry and heard stories about Trump but didn’t write them because he wasn’t important in it, just another rich guy buying a date farm, perhaps for his friends, perhaps for himself. This wasn’t pejorative, just how things were. (Leonardo DiCaprio, at the height of his “Pussy Posse” fame, thanked Trump for offering “one-stop date-shopping.”)
Now, those stories seem to matter more, and so I spoke in recent days with two Trump pals, both reluctant to talk about the man they once partied hard with who’s now the Republican nominee to be president of the United States. In that capacity, Trump has vowed to sue people who have come forward in recent weeks with allegations about his bad behavior.
One of the two men I spoke with, a fashion photographer, requested anonymity because he has fathered several children since his Trump days and doesn’t want his past dredged up. “There’s no upside for me,” he says.
The other man… well, you’ll read his words. Both confirmed that Trump, as I’ve reported, used to host parties in suites at the Plaza Hotel when he owned it, where young women and girls were introduced to older, richer men. This is hardly aberrant behavior in the modeling business. Indeed, it is standard operating procedure.
But both men also put Donald Trump in the room with cocaine, very young women and underage girls, and rich, old men there to—pardon my language, but if the Times can say pussy on its front page, I can say this—fuck them.
I’m sorry, Ivanka, I really am, because your mother raised you well and I can’t blame you for supporting your father (even if he did give—at the least—his blessing when you were 15 and signed on as a model yourself with Elite, the hard-partying high-end agency founded by notorious teen-fucker John Casablancas) but here’s the sad truth: Your dad’s not a dog. He’s a pig. The Daily Beast ok. Where is the mention of brutal rape? Also this source is wonky as fuck. If Breitbart or some shitter right wing BS website had some washed up old model (who talked highly of Trump in the article) and an anonymous source claiming Hillary touched little boys, would you automatically believe it? I wouldn't. I hate coming across as defending greasy Trump, but this whole culture of automatically convicting somebody you dislike of horrible things based on literal nothing sources is ridiculous. Sex with a minor is, by definition, reaper. It doesn't have to be brutal. It doesn't even have to be without consent, because the reason a minor is classified a minor is because they are deemed too young to be able to consent (or at least, for that consent to mean anything). And thus sex with a minor is ALWAYS without consent, and therefore tape. E: wow, my autocorrect really doesn't like the word "rape". Gonna leave the post as is, because it's quite funny :p You are wrong actually, at least for Europe. Sex with a minor is not rape. Its sex with a minor. This fellony is proscribed by a different article in Criminal laws than rape. DISCLAIMER: When I say Europe it is an educated guess. My opinion is based on Croatian law, and giving our law is strongly influenced by German and other Romanic derived laws, I presume the said legislature is the case for most european countries.
Take your silly Croatian laws to the European megathread.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statutory rape
E: and https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/croatia seems to think Croatia has similar statutory rape laws. The fact that in Croatian the words are different doesn't mean the concept is.
|
538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
|
Yeah, these laws exist in europe.
But calling the act rape feels pretty dumb to me too, it shouldn't be legal but calling it rape seems over the top.
|
On November 03 2016 18:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 08:01 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 03 2016 07:32 Doodsmack wrote:I’ve been covering Trump since 1985, when I worked for The New York Times’ women’s pages. He endorsed one of my books, about real estate, and was a character in two more of them. He talked to me about sex and substances and the substance of the arena in which he made his name, real estate. I published all of it. In 1999, he told me that in 1995 he’d been worth about negative $900 million. I didn’t have the chops to think to ask for his tax returns.
I also wrote a book about the modeling industry and heard stories about Trump but didn’t write them because he wasn’t important in it, just another rich guy buying a date farm, perhaps for his friends, perhaps for himself. This wasn’t pejorative, just how things were. (Leonardo DiCaprio, at the height of his “Pussy Posse” fame, thanked Trump for offering “one-stop date-shopping.”)
Now, those stories seem to matter more, and so I spoke in recent days with two Trump pals, both reluctant to talk about the man they once partied hard with who’s now the Republican nominee to be president of the United States. In that capacity, Trump has vowed to sue people who have come forward in recent weeks with allegations about his bad behavior.
One of the two men I spoke with, a fashion photographer, requested anonymity because he has fathered several children since his Trump days and doesn’t want his past dredged up. “There’s no upside for me,” he says.
The other man… well, you’ll read his words. Both confirmed that Trump, as I’ve reported, used to host parties in suites at the Plaza Hotel when he owned it, where young women and girls were introduced to older, richer men. This is hardly aberrant behavior in the modeling business. Indeed, it is standard operating procedure.
But both men also put Donald Trump in the room with cocaine, very young women and underage girls, and rich, old men there to—pardon my language, but if the Times can say pussy on its front page, I can say this—fuck them.
I’m sorry, Ivanka, I really am, because your mother raised you well and I can’t blame you for supporting your father (even if he did give—at the least—his blessing when you were 15 and signed on as a model yourself with Elite, the hard-partying high-end agency founded by notorious teen-fucker John Casablancas) but here’s the sad truth: Your dad’s not a dog. He’s a pig. The Daily Beast ok. Where is the mention of brutal rape? Also this source is wonky as fuck. If Breitbart or some shitter right wing BS website had some washed up old model (who talked highly of Trump in the article) and an anonymous source claiming Hillary touched little boys, would you automatically believe it? I wouldn't. I hate coming across as defending greasy Trump, but this whole culture of automatically convicting somebody you dislike of horrible things based on literal nothing sources is ridiculous. Sex with a minor is, by definition, reaper. It doesn't have to be brutal. It doesn't even have to be without consent, because the reason a minor is classified a minor is because they are deemed too young to be able to consent (or at least, for that consent to mean anything). And thus sex with a minor is ALWAYS without consent, and therefore tape. E: wow, my autocorrect really doesn't like the word "rape". Gonna leave the post as is, because it's quite funny :p
When I say brutal rape, I mean she literally accused him of tying her to the bed, raping her and threatening the well being of her family.
|
On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago.
|
The media has every incentive to play up how close the race is (and yes, I know we're talking 538, but still), I wouldn't get too mad just yet 
|
On November 03 2016 19:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 19:46 NukeD wrote:On November 03 2016 18:03 Acrofales wrote:On November 03 2016 08:01 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 03 2016 07:32 Doodsmack wrote:I’ve been covering Trump since 1985, when I worked for The New York Times’ women’s pages. He endorsed one of my books, about real estate, and was a character in two more of them. He talked to me about sex and substances and the substance of the arena in which he made his name, real estate. I published all of it. In 1999, he told me that in 1995 he’d been worth about negative $900 million. I didn’t have the chops to think to ask for his tax returns.
I also wrote a book about the modeling industry and heard stories about Trump but didn’t write them because he wasn’t important in it, just another rich guy buying a date farm, perhaps for his friends, perhaps for himself. This wasn’t pejorative, just how things were. (Leonardo DiCaprio, at the height of his “Pussy Posse” fame, thanked Trump for offering “one-stop date-shopping.”)
Now, those stories seem to matter more, and so I spoke in recent days with two Trump pals, both reluctant to talk about the man they once partied hard with who’s now the Republican nominee to be president of the United States. In that capacity, Trump has vowed to sue people who have come forward in recent weeks with allegations about his bad behavior.
One of the two men I spoke with, a fashion photographer, requested anonymity because he has fathered several children since his Trump days and doesn’t want his past dredged up. “There’s no upside for me,” he says.
The other man… well, you’ll read his words. Both confirmed that Trump, as I’ve reported, used to host parties in suites at the Plaza Hotel when he owned it, where young women and girls were introduced to older, richer men. This is hardly aberrant behavior in the modeling business. Indeed, it is standard operating procedure.
But both men also put Donald Trump in the room with cocaine, very young women and underage girls, and rich, old men there to—pardon my language, but if the Times can say pussy on its front page, I can say this—fuck them.
I’m sorry, Ivanka, I really am, because your mother raised you well and I can’t blame you for supporting your father (even if he did give—at the least—his blessing when you were 15 and signed on as a model yourself with Elite, the hard-partying high-end agency founded by notorious teen-fucker John Casablancas) but here’s the sad truth: Your dad’s not a dog. He’s a pig. The Daily Beast ok. Where is the mention of brutal rape? Also this source is wonky as fuck. If Breitbart or some shitter right wing BS website had some washed up old model (who talked highly of Trump in the article) and an anonymous source claiming Hillary touched little boys, would you automatically believe it? I wouldn't. I hate coming across as defending greasy Trump, but this whole culture of automatically convicting somebody you dislike of horrible things based on literal nothing sources is ridiculous. Sex with a minor is, by definition, reaper. It doesn't have to be brutal. It doesn't even have to be without consent, because the reason a minor is classified a minor is because they are deemed too young to be able to consent (or at least, for that consent to mean anything). And thus sex with a minor is ALWAYS without consent, and therefore tape. E: wow, my autocorrect really doesn't like the word "rape". Gonna leave the post as is, because it's quite funny :p You are wrong actually, at least for Europe. Sex with a minor is not rape. Its sex with a minor. This fellony is proscribed by a different article in Criminal laws than rape. DISCLAIMER: When I say Europe it is an educated guess. My opinion is based on Croatian law, and giving our law is strongly influenced by German and other Romanic derived laws, I presume the said legislature is the case for most european countries. Take your silly Croatian laws to the European megathread. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statutory rapeE: and https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/croatia seems to think Croatia has similar statutory rape laws. The fact that in Croatian the words are different doesn't mean the concept is.
Cant we just both be right my friend? The problem isnt the croatian language but the english language. Anyway i agree it rests on the concept you the described, that the minors are unable to give permission/the permission is prone to heavy influence by the older perpetuator.
|
If minors are statutorily unable to consent to a sexual act with a major and that lack of free consent is the basis for criminal liability, then the term rape applies without much difficulty. The only thing missing is a showing of force, which is excepted from statutory rape because of the age-related strict liability (and is highly controversial itself, I'll add).
|
On November 03 2016 17:40 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 06:02 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:50 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:46 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:34 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:31 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:23 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:20 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:18 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:16 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
1) trump has no chance
2) a coerced choice is not a free choice. you can tell me that voting for clinton is the only moral choice but you can't then tell me it's a free choice I dont follow this.. you're predicating your second point on the idea that by virtue of a choice being moral, it becomes the only choice ? That doesnt seem right. well if you want to be radical about it, there is no such thing as coercion right? even w a gun pointed at my head i can always choose the gun. Actually the only thing thats radical about this is your leap from morality to gun in terms of what determines the choice. I dont see the equivalence here in the argument you are making. equivalence to what? i said "coerced" not a literal gun to the head. because you are so obtuse ill give you a metaphor. if there is only one moral option the choice is coerced by a ghostly gun pointed at your immortal soul. you are only "free" to choose the moral option or choose spiritual death I mean I dont get it still, this is a pretty stupid metaphor, you are saying that an immoral decision will kill your soul/spirit when that really isnt the case. People make immoral decisions more often than they change their pyjamas. I dont see how voting for Drumpf even with the knowledge that the decisions to do so maybe immoral is spiritual death. Anyway lets leave it, I think your reasoning is stupid and we can agree to disagree on it. do you not know what the word coercion means or are you just playing the idiot? Slow down bro, just because i dont agree with your befuddling idea that someone who is making a moral choice is being "coerced" and not just being a normal human being you dont have to occupy some higher intellectual high ground that doesnt exist. Please spare me the "coercion is coercion" and none of us are free bullshit you are peddling. Im out, this discussion is absurd. please spare me the "coercion is not coercion" nitwit. i only occupy higher intellectual ground because you prefer walking in a ditch User was warned for this post At the risk of prolonging a profoundly stupid argument, your dictionary definition does not support your point. Your moral compass is fundamentally you. You having to choose between two shitty choices is not coercion. I recently had to pay 1000 euros to the real estate agent in order to rent the flat we just moved into. We were in a flat, but it had bed bugs. Our choices were to live with bed bugs, or pay 1000 euros to the real estate agent and move to this new flat. There was no coercion. Just a shit deal. The us election is a shitty choice (for most, I guess, some really like one of the two candidates). Nobody is coercing you to vote for HTC. You are simply restricted in your choices, and one choice is awful.
The apartment decision is not a moral choice. You aren't being forced to make a decision that has moral implications for other moral actors.
|
@acrofales
imagine you were living in a flat and someone said if you dont move we are going to throw this person in jail. is that coercion? now replace living in a flat w voting for hillary and throwing someone in jail w throwing muslims in jail.
edit: the key to the analysis is that you dont want to vote for hillary. you are compelled by moral force to do something you dont want to do
|
|
|
On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago.
Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though.
The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption.
|
On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption.
Only one of these things actually happened
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
