Messages

Friend posted this on their wall. Decided to throw in a comment of my own. Things went downhill from that point. I'll just leave the transcript of the conversation here.

ME: Considering how dissimilar they are, I look forward to this 'zombie socialism' we'll inevitably get.
18 hours ago • Like

HIM::  Republicans voting the same way in lockstep. What do you think?
18 hours ago • Like

ME:  Republicans and Democrats you mean? I don't see the asses behaving too differently from the oliphants.
18 hours ago • Like

HIM:  Republican intransigence makes compromise impossible. Therefore, gridlock.
18 hours ago • Like

ME:  Obama's made records for amount of legislation passed, had two years of a filibuster-proof majority in the senate and majority in the house, still has a majority in the senate, and has only vetoed two bills. Yeah, that's a real story of a hijacked legislature there.
18 hours ago • Like

HIM:  That's the conservative lie speaking. Obama only had a filibuster-proof majority for 133 days. George Bush never issued a veto when the Republicans controlled Congress. If Congress ever passed anything, Obama might have something to veto.

I have 13 years of Washington experience, including gathering and analyzing energy data for the Reagan and Bush I administrations. You apparently believe Fox News. That is ill advised.
17 hours ago • Like

ME:  http://www.justpurefact.com/id10.html

Oh, really? Congress never passed anything?

Why don't you actually do research before beating your chest and trying to insult anyone who disagrees with you. And while you're at it, return the taxpayer money apparently wasted on your research career if the best you can do is say "You watch faux news! Trollolololol!"

Btw, I prefer the Daily Show.

JustPureFact
www.justpurefact.com
Unbiased voting records, just the facts period
17 hours ago • Like • Remove Preview

HIM:  Fuck off. I know far more about this than you ever will.
17 hours ago • Like

ME:  Then put your money where your mouth is. PROVE IT.
17 hours ago • Like

ME:  And for the record, I probably hate Romney more than you do.
17 hours ago • Like


HIM:  The fact that you post no information about yourself tells me a lot. I don't hate Romney, just the idea that he might be President. I do know he was so unpopular by the end of his single term as governor of Massachusetts, he didn't dare run for re-election.

My office was a block from the White House, and I used to socialize with people from the White House, Capitol Hill, and the bureaucracy. As a reporter, I have interviewed everyone from presidential candidates to selectmen. I wrote the nation's coal production report for several years. I have partied with U.S. Senators. I have even been a lobbyist on occasion.

So, yes, I know a whole lot more about this than you ever will. You could learn something, but I see from your timeline you fully buy into Obama hate, so that's not likely.
17 hours ago • Edited • Like

ME:  "The fact that you post no information about yourself tells me a lot."

Actually, by definition, it tells you nothing. By the way, you might want to look up this fallacy -

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

" I don't hate Romney, just the idea that he might be President. "

Then I probably hate the possibility that he might be President more than you do.

"I do know he was so unpopular by the end of his single term as governor of Massachusetts, he didn't dare run for re-election."

Or maybe that he was more intent on getting a presidential nomination?

"My office was a block from the White House, and I used to socialize with people from the White House, Capitol Hill, and the bureaucracy. As a reporter, I have interviewed everyone from presidential candidates to selectmen. I wrote the nation's coal production report for several years. I have partied with U.S. Senators. I have even been a lobbyist on occasion."

And we meet logical fallacy number 2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeal_to_authority

I don't care if you hold meetings with god. Either you provide evidence for your claims (as I have done) or you don't. The fact that you haven't done so leaves me (and any logical individual) with no choice but to reject your claims.

"So, yes, I know a whole lot more about this than you ever will."

If that were true, you could prove it.

"You could learn something, but I see from your timeline you fully buy into Obama hate, so that's not likely."

It's a little unsettling when you keep committing the same logical fallacy over and over again. Are you sure you're in a position to be commenting on this topic?

Argumentum Ad Hominem
philosophy.lander.edu
The argument concerning the attack of a person's character or circumstances is...
See More
16 hours ago • Like • Remove Preview

HIM:  Sorry, Marmaduke, I haven't attacked your character yet. But the fact that you post no personal information of any kind tells me you have a touch of paranoia and definitely something to hide. The hallmark, incidentally, of conservative thinking.
2 hours ago • Like

ME:  Either your comments were meant as an insult (in which case, you were attacking my character) or you meant to imply that they had something to do with the validity of my argument. So which one is it? Did you insult me, or did you use bad logic? (You ARE aware of the difference, right?)

By the way, you have yet to cite anything in support of your argument. Your last several comments have consisted of little apart from insults and chest-beating. Do you have anything more to contribute, or are you just trying to save face?

(While you're at it,take a good look at my avatar and the entire contents of my page BEFORE you try to brand me as a conservative. Could you also do everyone a favor and post a peer-reviewed source for this claim: "(...) a touch of paranoia and definitely something to hide. The hallmark, incidentally, of conservative thinking"?)

This is just laughable.

What I find funny is that New Hampshire (the chosen destination for the Free State Project) has lots of small-government tendencies, and yet is one of the nicest places to live in the country.

Instead of selling them, can I just have them as MY slaves? I can't even get them to clean their rooms!

That's why you sell them with a "no returns" policy. :-P

It's easy to improve finances when you're already "rolling pennies for meals" broke.

The point where you're so poor, you're having children just so you can have a cheap alternative to turkey at Christmas. :-P

can it easily run older programs from XP and before? that was an issue in window 7 and vista, which has bitten me in the ass lately with some geology programs.

I haven't run into that problem myself, so I can't tell you. Which programs in particular are you having trouble with?

So I decided to go ahead and update my Windows 7 installation to the latest Windows 8 release preview. Installation went surprisingly fast with minimal difficulties (under 40 minutes, saitek cyborg v7 keyboard stopped working (it's always been temperamental, even on Vista & 7 according to the reviews)). Boot up is extremely fast, actually rivaling Ubuntu's (though I haven't done the stopwatch test yet). As far as I can tell, everything is running faster than it was before. The interface is much improved, with a simple key shortcut (windows key + x) to quickly bring up the usual troubleshooting tools like resource monitor and task manager (which have been upgraded to much better interfaces).

I personally don't understand some of the complaints that have been made in places like Kotaku about the metro interface. Once you click on the 'desktop' key in Metro (or just press the windows key to switch between aero & metro desktop), you never have to even look at the metro desktop if you don't want to. And why wouldn't you want to? I personally love it. The OS just, in general, seems more user-friendly than before.

That said, if you've already got Windows 7 and aren't planning to directly purchase it in the next few days for other reasons (as I'm planning to, building desktop for girlfriend), I wouldn't say that it necessitates an upgrade at this point. Not unless you're getting it for a computer with a significant RAM deficiency and the price point is worth it to you. The new features and such are VERY nice, don't get me wrong. They just don't quite justify the MSRP I've heard quoted. Close, but not quite.

Anybody else try out the Windows 8 Release Preview?

Am I the only one being called "Extremist" for my libertarian views?

A "friend" just told me that he wouldn't look at my sources becuase I'm an "Extremist"

Is this common?

I've been called extremist, but not usually with such negative connotation (or it usually comes with an asterisk like "extreme, but makes a good point"). The only time someone outright refused to look at my sources was when they claimed bias rather than extremism. That in and of itself is an ad hominem fallacy, the way it's usually used. It's like claiming that someone is lying about having an affair simply because they'd be in trouble if they admitted it. Most often, people use it as an intellectually lazy excuse to disregard evidence that contradicts their argument.

To be sure, bias can hurt a source's accuracy, but that's a motive rather than direct evidence. To establish bias, you need to establish a history of logical errors in a predictable pattern. And as I said before, that would just give you motive. You'd still have to establish a logical error within the sourceregarding the subject itself.

In essence, even if the bias claim wasn't irrelevant, you'dd still have to do the standard work of locating the llogical/factual error within the source first.

[wrestling fan rant]Ugh, I fucking hate the use of that term to describe pro wrestling. "Rigged" has such negative connotations about it and makes it sound like a malicious scam. Wrestling is staged, yes, but people KNOW it is staged and still go to watch it anyway because it is enjoyable. You never hear this kind of bullshit to describe movies or television shows. You know, for the most part, that the hero is going to win but nobody says "Oh this shit is so rigged."[/wrestling fan rant]

When they say it about a TV show, they say they found the drama unconvincing or the villain unthreatening. :-P

Suspension of disbelief is required for entertainment like that to work. For some people, wrestling does this fine or very well. For others, it doesn't. In the latter, it makes it difficult to enjoy.

Of course, some people take a snobbish attitude just to feel better about themselves, but that's different.

He sent me another reply, though a quick warning, it's long and full of douchebaggery:

Do you mind if I submit every reply he made to me in that conversation for consideration for fail-quotes? :-P

He sent me another reply, though a quick warning, it's long and full of douchebaggery:

Remember, he's butthurt because someone spit on the badge he's been using as an alternative for testicles.

I also find it interesting that he's somehow implying that he cares about you while defending the abuse of power & violence you criticize. If he's so upset about overdosing, why doesn't he go after the real cause of overdoses: differences in drug purity caused by a lack of industry standards (such as those that exist for caffeine) BECAUSE OF THE WAR ON DRUGS?

Also, I find it funny that he tries to frame things as if a few bad eggs are messing it up for everyone. Tell him to look up drug war corruption (asset forfeiture in particular) in a criminal justice studies journal. It's a pervasive problem. One dead man is too much for us. How many deaths would it require for things to be wrong for him? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? How many lives are worth it for his pride and overcompensation? How many people would he allow to die so he can feel better about himself?

He's a parasite, nothing more. You're better off without him.

I removed him from my friends. He was such a condescending prick that I didn't have much of a choice.

He left me a message though:
Sorry Jim, I didn't unfriend you because you disagreed. I unfriended you because you wanted to act like a douchebag.

So, basically, "you can't comment on politics cuz you fat!" Unbelievable...

Though I find it amusing that I cut deep enough for him to name me personally in that. :-P

Oh good...cousin Jimmy is back and this time he's as much of a douchebag as ever.



The context of the discussion was because I posted the following picture (which is not fail):

Added my own bit to that exchange. People like him are the reason I switched to economics instead of criminal justice.

Oh the numerous logical fallacies contained in this one image:

How many can YOU spot? I'll just demonstrate one:

"If there's no God, then how come people give billions of dollars a year to churches?"

"If homeopathy doesn't work, then how come people spend billions of dollars a year on homeopathic remedies?"

Not to mention, I'd love to see their source on that. As far as I can recall, the Koch brothers are still on the board of trustees for the reason foundation, which has been anything but kind to Romney, even suggesting that an Obama win would be preferable if Romney wins the Repub nomination.

with that moron as head of the federal reserve, it's not going to last much longer.

of course, if he were to wisen up, the least he'd do is contract the amount of money or something--end the inflation either way. at most, end the use and reliance on this silly paper/computer money. it's absurd.

I think it might be good for the US to start a program where they start purchasing various precious metals like gold, silver, platinum, etc. When they have enough to back the majority of dollars in circulation, tie the price of the dollar to a certain amount of gold, but allow it to be exchanged for an equivalent amount of other metals (say, if the dollar was tied to an ounce of gold, you could exchange the dollar for an amount of silver equivalent to the value of one ounce of gold). That'll keep the price stable while alleviating the fears of some people that a gold standard wouldn't adequately supply the currency in circulation.

How are they going to be able to borrow, though, with negative real interest rates where no one in their right mind would lend it to them?

Private companies themselves are also pretty heavily indebted. The debt to equity ratio is still elevated from pre-crisis borrowing. I doubt they'd reach for more debt until their balance sheets were a bit healthier.