Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 10, 2016, 11:36:47 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1067
1  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Lief Reservoir of Simple Truths and Smart One-Liners on: Today at 08:01:01 pm
lol. If you really think a simple, lazy zinger like that means neckbeard, then quite a lot of things will mean neckbeard to you. Go outside and get some perspective.

Are you addressing me or the person who actually used "neckbeard"?

anyway, I'm pretty sure that I just gave a pretty damn specific explanation of why I don't think that particular class of 'zing' makes sense.  Would you like to bring any of that perspective you're hyping to the table, or are you satisfied with being dumbly self-satisfied?
2  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Are you a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist? on: Today at 05:47:44 pm
I'm respectfully having trouble understanding how what you're describing isn't completely compatible with the "culture" bucket...you've just indicated that Jews are an atomistic, heterogeneous culture (or, if you prefer, multiple cultures/subcultures).  OK, but so what?  A normative belief can exist between multiple different cultures, and it's possible for subcultures to exist under a banner "culture" but exhibit different traits.  The fact that there are multiple (sub)cultures that share a cultural trait does not mean that the trait isn't cultural.  It just means that the presence of that trait doesn't wholly define and distinguish the (sub)culture.

As far as I can tell, you basically are just arguing that Jewish identity is a cultural identification that isn't contingent on religious belief.  That's fine, and I'm aware.  (Obviously you know more about Judaism than I do, but I probably know more about Judaism than Christianity, tbh.)  The thing about culture is that it's a system of traditions and norms that, unless you grant it intrinsic authority for some reason, has no innate claim to authority.  That's my point -- it's not "true" in any sense besides it's something that people decide to participate in (or people around them try to pressure them into participating in).  And yet I often hear people say "I'm x even though I don't believe it and it's not important to me."  It's literally just applying a cultural norm you're not interested in to yourself because people who are interested in it say you should.  It makes no sense.

Also, this is 100% an aside, but "reject God"?  really, dude?  I assume you're probably using that as a shorthand for "fail to accept what I see as evident," but that's not what "rejection" means.  You're making it sound like atheists left-swipe God on Tinder or something.
3  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Are you a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist? on: Today at 02:26:35 pm
I've never really understood the idea of identifying as non-religious but accepting that maternal rite (Judaism) or baptism somehow makes you a Jew or a Christian.  If you're not religious, why do you accept the authority of religious rites in dictating what religion you are?  That doesn't make sense.
At that point it has become one's personal choice to identify that way, I'd say. Also, traditions (such as the tradition that one is a Jew if one's mother is; hard to disentangle "religion" and "tradition" here, but in my opinion the word "religion" doesn't accurately describe Judaism anyway) have social and cultural value apart from their religious importance. Even if people don't believe, they don't necessarily want to lose that. So many Jews go to synagogue on Yom Kippur and sometimes even keep the fast without believing in G-d.

You're mostly talking about cultural identification here, though, which I think is totally understandable -- whatever makes people happy.  But I've definitely met Jews who seem to believe that maternal rite is authoritative somehow, not just a something they choose to accept or that manifests as a cultural norm.  They seem to think it's objectively "true" for some reason, and this makes no sense at all to me...
4  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Lief Reservoir of Simple Truths and Smart One-Liners on: Today at 07:38:53 am
Yeah, it's a good thing that people don't constantly talk that way about political orientation, sports, and literally everything else that people disagree over.

Seriously, I'm with Joe.  It's such a weird attack to me, considering that Christians are frequently hugely dismissive of atheists and yet I generally don't see people presuming that pithy criticisms of atheism are try-hardism (or whatever the fedora thing is supposed to represent).  Is it because one behavior is more "socially weird"?  If so, that's a terrible reason.

It just seems self-evident that uncommon beliefs (<5% of the population), no matter how correct they may be, will be disproportionately held by kooks.  I don't get the point of mocking that.  Isn't it more of a problem when people with widespread beliefs behave dismissively like that?  If so, why is the presumption of try-hardism disproportionately levied at the uncommon beliefs?  Isn't dismissing people who express uncommon beliefs as kooks/try-hards is part of the reason why not many normal people express uncommon beliefs?

Sometimes this stuff seems especially vicious among online liberal types, almost as if they were going out of their way to prove that they're "not one of those people" -- even if means being dickish to people who aren't actually being kooks or try-hards.

I recognize that this is OT and I might even still technically moderate this subforum (idk) but I needed to rant.  I seriously don't get you sometimes, Internet.
5  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Are you a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist? on: Today at 05:40:50 am
I've never really understood the idea of identifying as non-religious but accepting that maternal rite (Judaism) or baptism somehow makes you a Jew or a Christian.  If you're not religious, why do you accept the authority of religious rites in dictating what religion you are?  That doesn't make sense.

(I'm not saying one can't be culturally Jewish or Christian, although that's not really a meaningful religious identification in my book...it's the "I don't believe it's true but I'm x because x religion says I am" that baffles me.)
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: Today at 03:27:04 am
Quote
Harry, I guess I’m a little more bullish than you on Trump, depending on what margins he gets! Trump winning with 25 percent of the vote is quite a bit different from him winning with 35 percent of the vote. And it matters how the other candidates line up. If Trump gets 35 percent of the vote or something and the “establishment lane” is a mess, that’s a really excellent result for him and I wouldn’t be too dismissive about his chances going forward.

^ Nate Silver

Will he move the goalposts again?

Exactly how is that "moving the goalposts"?
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie's fundraising website crashes after being declared winner of NH on: Today at 02:07:41 am
oh lord, by the time we're arguing over Sanders' choice of credit card processing company, you know we've reached a high level of ridiculous
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: Today at 02:05:01 am
Is there an updated town-level map or is Decision Desk the only source that did that?
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 07:37:33 pm
People on the ground wouldn't explain getting results from unclosed polling spots.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 07:25:39 pm
OK, towns are starting to report and then have their results disappear.  This is screwy.

edit: lol and now Lebanon Ward 2 is reporting 100-0 Bush.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 07:19:39 pm
Man, Seabrook was >50 Romney and 57%-22% Clinton in the past.  Interesting results we're getting this year.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 06:39:07 pm
It also kind of matters that even final exit polls methodologically, y'know, suck horribly.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Tracking Midnight Towns NH Primary on: February 08, 2016, 06:24:47 pm
Millsfield, 2012
Paul 8
Huckabee 2
Romney 2
Gingrich 1
Santorum 1

General
Romney 16
Obama 5
Johnson 1

Millsfield, 2008
McCain 3
Huckabee 2
Romney 2
Thompson 1

Clinton 4
Obama 1
Richardson 1

General
McCain 9
Obama 5
Barr 2
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Overtime Politics thread on: February 07, 2016, 02:45:14 pm
Even if their New Hampshire poll does fine, I'm going to remain completely skeptical about this firm.  Tarot readings are right sometimes too, and they're much more complex than creating a fake poll topline.
15  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: I have changed my primary vote on: February 02, 2016, 02:51:34 pm
Dare I ask what changed your mind?

[20:51] <BRTD> bedstuy here's the thing: I don't want to go to my caucus and join up with a bunch of olds.
[20:51] <BRTD> while all these cool youngs are in the Sanders subcaucus.

Literally the most BRTD thing imaginable.

How on Earth is this any different from identifying as Catholic even if you believe nothing about it because of "muh culture"? It's almost the exact same thing, making an identification because of your demographic profile in your ethnic background.

I'll explain more after work.

No, it's like attending a Catholic church, praying, and acting as if you entirely believe the substance of Catholicism, just for cultural identification purposes.  Which is ridiculous too.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Overtime Politics thread on: February 02, 2016, 03:17:16 am
Overtime showed a statistical tie in Iowa, and that's what actually happened. Time to stop treating them like junk for dems. For the Republicans though........

...that's really not how that should work.

Yes it is how it should work.

oh lord I'm too tired for your silly, silly nonsense tonight, but WHATEVER:

1. You are basing this conclusion on a sample size of ONE, which is statistically ridiculous from several angles.  Think about how margin of error works, among other things.

2. You are assuming, for no apparent reason whatsoever, that this pollster used a superior methodology.  It's quite possible -- likely, even -- that the other pollsters used the sound, reasonable methodology for voter screens.  It's impossible for pollsters to be psychic about voter screens.  Using a screwy voter screen and getting lucky doesn't make a pollster good, unless they can explain the methodological rationale behind their voter screen.  It just makes them screwy.  Note the difference between Ann Selzer, who didn't nail this one but can fluently discuss her approach to voter screening, and Overtime, which talks exactly how you'd expect someone who is making things up.

3. Why would you think that this pollster had some sort of secret insight into polling the Republican Primary but not the Democratic Party?  Do you have any methodological reason whatsoever to believe that, besides that they happened to get one of the races correct?

4. Most importantly, as Adam says, any reasonable person who has followed Overtime should conclude it's more likely that this pollster is NOT REAL than that they've come up with some brilliant methodological approach based on one damn poll.

5. I really doubt you have any statistically sound argument to back up your claim that "Yes it is how it should work."  This isn't an argument against your statement, but I just wanted to reiterate how completely ridiculous you're being.

GOODNIGHT
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Overtime Politics thread on: February 02, 2016, 01:44:25 am
Overtime showed a statistical tie in Iowa, and that's what actually happened. Time to stop treating them like junk for dems. For the Republicans though........

...that's really not how that should work.
18  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of RFayette's signatures? on: February 01, 2016, 05:55:05 pm
I.e., questioning is OK unless it makes you question beliefs that you've decided aren't subject to logical analysis?

You do realize that's exactly how a delusion is defined?  If someone had that kind of belief that, say, the CIA was watching them, wouldn't you consider it overt mental illness...?

The point is, certain things just require faith.  And that includes faith in the Bible as God's word. 

How do you consider that different than delusion, though?
19  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of RFayette's signatures? on: February 01, 2016, 05:42:14 pm
I.e., questioning is OK unless it makes you question beliefs that you've decided aren't subject to logical analysis?

You do realize that's exactly how a delusion is defined?  If someone had that kind of belief that, say, the CIA was watching them, wouldn't you consider it overt mental illness...?
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: ABC News: IA R & D caucus location websites don't work for new voters on: February 01, 2016, 05:35:54 pm
I doubt a significant proportion of caucus attendees will be newly-registered voters.  It might ding Sanders a little (college students), but I imagine the vast majority of first-time caucusgoers will be established registered voters.

Well, that's the point, it dings 17 (they can vote if 18 by the general election) and 18 year olds the most, who are strongly Bernie.

Assuming they live at an address without any other registered voters.  How many 17-year-old caucusgoers would fit that category?  Again, some college students, but not many.

I just checked Washington's 2008 caucus attendees.  Only about 0.4% of Obama's (and 0.1% of Clinton's) caucusgoers were 17 or 18.  That probably makes for a miniscule number when you break it down to those who were the only voters at their houses.

(and that's further cut down to those who couldn't figure out another way of finding their caucus site...we're down to a few dozen at this point.)
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: ABC News: IA R & D caucus location websites don't work for new voters on: February 01, 2016, 04:30:25 pm
I doubt a significant proportion of caucus attendees will be newly-registered voters.  It might ding Sanders a little (college students), but I imagine the vast majority of first-time caucusgoers will be established registered voters.
22  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of RFayette's signatures? on: February 01, 2016, 04:10:57 pm
Oy :\
23  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Attention Dave: We Need A New Political Matrix Test on: February 01, 2016, 12:01:59 am
The best questions are definitely the ones that can consistently capture an element of political philosophy and aren't dependent on the news cycle.

Kind of like how flag burning seemed ca. 2006 Tongue
24  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Attention Dave: We Need A New Political Matrix Test on: January 31, 2016, 11:22:54 pm
Dave hosts this, but has nothing to do with the design.  Smiley

It's not hard to recode the test with new questions, which I agree is needed since it dates from the Bush administration.  Does someone(s) want to work on a question set?  If someone does that, I'd be happy to edit/implement.  The scoring system is very simple, so implementing new questions isn't too tough!
25  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of RFayette's signatures? on: January 31, 2016, 11:01:17 pm
I guess, without the background, I might be underestimating the emotional need for self-affirmation.  However, I think it's worth considering that what's self-affirmation to you is kind of a "screw you" to those of us who aren't being jerks and are trying to make reasoned points, and then see something like what's in your signature.  It basically does say "well, whatever, you're going to hell."  Without context, and even with it somewhat tbh, that does seem passive-aggressive (and kinda spiteful) to those of us who aren't being mean-spirited to you Smiley
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1067


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines