First off I apologize if this is in the wrong section.
I've read multiple times that there are several conservative minded peeps here, but I don't think I've really seem one yet, that hasn't bailed within a very short time anyway.
Just curious.
I'm not one of the conservative minded people here, but last time we, you and I had a conversation it went real nice...I think. You're a conservative we can speak with. :smilenod:
imaginaryfriendless, well, that's another story. :-\ He's a different type of conservative. :shooty:
He "experimented" with us! Can you believe that! He's got a lot of nerve! :foottap:
Quote from: Steeler on August 02, 2016, 04:35:20 AM
First off I apologize if this is in the wrong section.
I've read multiple times that there are several conservative minded peeps here, but I don't think I've really seem one yet, that hasn't bailed within a very short time anyway.
Just curious.
This thread is fine in the Laid Back Lounge until it turns into a political discussion. ;)
I was thinking of you when I welcomed
imaginaryfriendless (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14598.msg335456#msg335456). I'm disappointed that he left, but honestly I don't think he would have stuck around on any atheist site--he was just passing time while he healed from his operation.
Quote from: Steeler on August 02, 2016, 04:35:20 AM
First off I apologize if this is in the wrong section.
I've read multiple times that there are several conservative minded peeps here, but I don't think I've really seem one yet, that hasn't bailed within a very short time anyway.
Just curious.
Hi Steeler,
I'm a Dutch right wing, progressive, green conservative. I guess that makes me a mixture between a Democrat and a Republican, a bit on the right scale of the political scale.
Hi Tom! Ok, you're 1. Glad to hear from ya!
Mags, you have been respectful in our discussions even though we disagree pretty deeply on some things. But that's ok!
Recusant, I saw that and thought you might have been referring to me. I was a bit behind so the first postings I read of his were in the politics and religion topic. Seemed like a guy I could get behind. Then I read some of his other stuff. Wtf. He had something going there but then imploded.
This is a hard place to be of a differing mindset. Some here see things as I do. We may not agree, but that doesn't make my views any less valid than yours.
But then there are a couple here that just want to slam someone who sees things differently than they do. I don't have much energy to waste on those kind.
Quote from: Steeler on August 02, 2016, 05:38:06 AM
Mags, you have been respectful in our discussions even though we disagree pretty deeply on some things. But that's ok!
Yes, that's ok!
Let us work/focus on one thing at a time. ;)
Quote from: Steeler on August 02, 2016, 05:38:06 AM
This is a hard place to be of a differing mindset. Some here see things as I do. We may not agree, but that doesn't make my views any less valid than yours.
But then there are a couple here that just want to slam someone who sees things differently than they do. I don't have much energy to waste on those kind.
We all have a "unique" style when we communicate.
I know of a couple, but I don't think there are "several". Could be a left leaning bias on my part though to think that a vast majority of atheists are more on the liberal side...
Quote from: Magdalena on August 02, 2016, 04:52:25 AM
He "experimented" with us! Can you believe that! He's got a lot of nerve! :foottap:
Yeah! Don't we need to sign a consent form first? :popcorn:
I don't fit on the US political scale, but I am pretty damned near to being a right-wing populist by my local standards. That puts me firmly into the conservative territory, but it may not mean the same here as it does elsewhere.
I'm a cherry picker.
Hate politics-for-power of any kind and mixed up ideologucally.
Pragmatic.
Closet anarchist.
OK with anyone will to act respectfully and with sound motives.
Anarchy. Now there's an interesting idea. Unfortunately, the masses are neither intelligent nor wise enough for it to work in any but unpleasantly Darwinian way.
Quote from: Asmodean on August 02, 2016, 09:55:53 AM
Anarchy. Now there's an interesting idea. Unfortunately, the masses are neither intelligent nor wise enough for it to work in any but unpleasantly Darwinian way.
Exactly, Asmo, true anarchy requires a sort of specialised socialism that relies on the full integrity of all members. Not the social Darwinism it could so easily become.
Just another Utopia . . .
You know, if I had a more prominent sadistic streak, I'd probably be a social Darwinist. However, even though I'm heavily on the "Fuck you. Earn it!" side of socialism, I do not enjoy walking over metaphorical corpses or seeing otherwise productive people in shitty situations, often due to little fault of their own.
I think that is the least appealing consequence of real-world anarchy. How can you avoid it turning into a world of and for psycho- and sociopaths?
Since in the US, the current Conservative party is heavily, heavily influenced by religion, I don't think it's a stretch or bias to say more US atheists are liberal. Between that and the other horrible sexist, racist policy the party is currently spewing I distance myself from anything approaching affiliation. But if you took out the religion and bigotry I'd probably be pretty middle of the road...
I find it deeply concerning that the party is eating itself alive with this rethoric. Most people I know who were avowed Republicans up until McCain are struggling to come to terms with it all and tending to vote Democrat because of it.
Quote from: Asmodean on August 02, 2016, 11:14:25 AM
You know, if I had a more prominent sadistic streak, I'd probably be a social Darwinist. However, even though I'm heavily on the "Fuck you. Earn it!" side of socialism, I do not enjoy walking over metaphorical corpses or seeing otherwise productive people in shitty situations, often due to little fault of their own.
I think that is the least appealing consequence of real-world anarchy. How can you avoid it turning into a world of and for psycho- and sociopaths?
The question is, "How do you define anarchy".
My definition is nothing like a survivalist free-for-all. In terms of it being "without management/leadership" it requires that members do what is reqired to maintain civilisation -
without anyone having the authority to order them to do so.Trouble is that requires someone being willing to shovel shit when shit needs shovelling. Also, every person must have the same "reward", shovelling shit earns you the same quality of life as discovering a life saving drug. Later: if the shit ain't shovelled you might need that life saving drug!
The ultimate, but impossible, equality system. And, ultimately, it is inequality that breeds "evil".
Like Gloucester I pick and mix based on what I see as the right thing to do. Take nuclear weapons for example. I support the UK having nuclear weapons 100%. But I am not convinced that ballistic missile subs are the way to deliver them, except in a retaliatory strike. I could even get on board with the 'Nukes in the cupboard' option like Japan. In that case there are no assembled nukes in Japan but they have all the expertise and material to make one in a matter of months. In the UK we could disassemble all bar a handful of nukes and if needed start to reassemble them in times of tension. That would send a very strong message to any potential adversary.
I'm UKIP - that's a pretty right-wing populist, lot.
I don't really give a shit about conservative or liberal, or even political parties. It's fine if the label is applied as a descriptor, but most people seem to use them more prescriptively instead of descriptively. They take sides and close their minds to the side they didn't choose often to a ridiculous and/or hilarious effect. So much confirmation bias, so many straw men, so many other fallacies, and so much irrational hate.
When I vote for and talk about political shit, I don't take sides based on political parties or the faulty conservative/liberal dichotomy. Some things need to stay the same, a lot of things need to change, but hardly anything needs to be regressed. Because of my views, I often conflict with liberals and conservatives. In the US liberals have a slightly higher tendency to say things that are true while conservatives are more prone to pulling "facts" from their asses. Just take a look at where the line is drawn when it comes to global warming.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2016, 07:03:33 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on August 02, 2016, 04:52:25 AM
He "experimented" with us! Can you believe that! He's got a lot of nerve! :foottap:
Yeah! Don't we need to sign a consent form first? :popcorn:
I think so. :notsure:
Did you get one?
I'm conservative on some issues, liberal on others, centrist on others. On average, a centrist. I've got no problem with gun ownership under the Second Amendment. The vast majority of American citizens who own guns do so responsibly. There are crazies and criminals, and I'm fine with restricting their right to own. I'm conservative in the sense that I think the debt should be reduced and we shouldn't spend more than we can bring in. That's just good management. I do think we ought to have a secure border, just like I have a secure front door to my home. But I'm not anti-immigrant. We all came from somewhere. I think taxes on the middle class and below should not be raised. I've no problem with higher taxes on the upper 1%. So, I'm a mixed bag.
I also do the "mixed bag" approach to politics. But I generally fall somewhere on the libertarian left.
"Am I the only conservative here?"
Depends on what you're trying to conserve.
Attempting to keep the planet fit for human habitation isn't conservative for some conservatives.
I think it is.
Precautionary principle
QuoteDepends on what you're trying to conserve.
I'm a mango chutneyist, does that count?
Quote from: Gloucester on August 02, 2016, 04:23:43 PM
QuoteDepends on what you're trying to conserve.
I'm a mango chutneyist, does that count?
Certainly it does, I'd ask you to send me a jar but it's nots practical.
I jar a chunky pasta sauce and a sweet and sour.
Quote from: Guardian85 on August 02, 2016, 03:46:28 PM
I also do the "mixed bag" approach to politics. But I generally fall somewhere on the libertarian left.
Do we have Libertarianism represented in leftist Norwegian politics..? Because our left is sort of heavy on the whole one for all concept, which by its very nature encroaches on maximizing personal freedom..?
I know it gets a little mushy when comparing a US conservative to conservatives from overseas. I'm assuming it does anyway.
I've taken a bazillion political quizzes and always seem to fall just right of center. Probably what moves me towards center are religious views and abortion, neither of which I really give much of a hoot about.
Davin, you seem angry. Like always. Or is it just me that gets you that way?
Quote from: Steeler on August 02, 2016, 08:21:15 PM
Davin, you seem angry. Like always. Or is it just me that gets you that way?
Not angry at all, if you detect any emotion in my writing that I do not inform you of, then you are in error. I highly doubt that you can affect my emotional state in any way.
Quote from: Steeler on August 02, 2016, 08:21:15 PM
Davin, you seem angry. Like always. Or is it just me that gets you that way?
Quote from: Davin on August 02, 2016, 08:34:36 PM
Quote from: Steeler on August 02, 2016, 08:21:15 PM
Davin, you seem angry. Like always. Or is it just me that gets you that way?
Not angry at all, if you detect any emotion in my writing that I do not inform you of, then you are in error. I highly doubt that you can affect my emotional state in any way.
He eats veggie-Asmos too. >:( Totally disrespectful.
Quote from: Asmodean on August 02, 2016, 09:24:07 PM
He eats veggie-Asmos too. >:( Totally disrespectful.
I didn't think you'd mind me devouring false Asmos.
Quote from: Magdalena on August 02, 2016, 03:12:27 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2016, 07:03:33 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on August 02, 2016, 04:52:25 AM
He "experimented" with us! Can you believe that! He's got a lot of nerve! :foottap:
Yeah! Don't we need to sign a consent form first? :popcorn:
I think so. :notsure:
Did you get one?
It was probably lost in the mail. :notsure:
I blame it on an experimental new delivery system.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2016, 09:44:44 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on August 02, 2016, 03:12:27 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2016, 07:03:33 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on August 02, 2016, 04:52:25 AM
He "experimented" with us! Can you believe that! He's got a lot of nerve! :foottap:
Yeah! Don't we need to sign a consent form first? :popcorn:
I think so. :notsure:
Did you get one?
It was probably lost in the mail. :notsure:
I blame it on an experimental new delivery system.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.en.kolobok.us%2Fsmiles%2Fstandart%2Ffacepalm.gif&hash=29c8fc7e4f6db938f2fa98bade190873334a0acd)
Quote from: Davin on August 02, 2016, 09:34:35 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on August 02, 2016, 09:24:07 PM
He eats veggie-Asmos too. >:( Totally disrespectful.
I didn't think you'd mind me devouring false Asmos.
And what's a proper The Asmo to eat? rattie droppings?! >:(
EDIT: This, by the way, is SO in line with my general viewpoint when it comes to people rushing to defend their poor little gods. If your god is toothless enough to need
you to defend it against
me, then why would I even consider making it my god too? >:( Never really got a proper response to this challenge.
Quote from: Pasta Chick on August 02, 2016, 11:28:46 AM
Since in the US, the current Conservative party is heavily, heavily influenced by religion, I don't think it's a stretch or bias to say more US atheists are liberal. Between that and the other horrible sexist, racist policy the party is currently spewing I distance myself from anything approaching affiliation. But if you took out the religion and bigotry I'd probably be pretty middle of the road...
Add homophobia and transphobia to that, and that's exactly why I can not even begin to even think of affiliating myself with the Republican/conservative party. I find it sickening that we have a party built on these (not that the Democrat party is perfect) and it's just treated like it's all a-okay, that these positions are valid sides, that they are something to be proud of, that they are something to be legislated. It's disgusting. Or perhaps I should say it's
frightening.
Quote from: Davin on August 02, 2016, 02:49:16 PM
I don't really give a shit about conservative or liberal, or even political parties. It's fine if the label is applied as a descriptor, but most people seem to use them more prescriptively instead of descriptively. They take sides and close their minds to the side they didn't choose often to a ridiculous and/or hilarious effect. So much confirmation bias, so many straw men, so many other fallacies, and so much irrational hate.
When I vote for and talk about political shit, I don't take sides based on political parties or the faulty conservative/liberal dichotomy. Some things need to stay the same, a lot of things need to change, but hardly anything needs to be regressed. Because of my views, I often conflict with liberals and conservatives. In the US liberals have a slightly higher tendency to say things that are true while conservatives are more prone to pulling "facts" from their asses. Just take a look at where the line is drawn when it comes to global warming.
Well said Davin; very articulate, and although I think you are clear and firm, you don't sound angry to me.
Quote from: Asmodean on August 02, 2016, 10:18:01 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 02, 2016, 09:34:35 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on August 02, 2016, 09:24:07 PM
He eats veggie-Asmos too. >:( Totally disrespectful.
I didn't think you'd mind me devouring false Asmos.
And what's a proper The Asmo to eat? rattie droppings?! >:(
EDIT: This, by the way, is SO in line with my general viewpoint when it comes to people rushing to defend their poor little gods. If your god is toothless enough to need you to defend it against me, then why would I even consider making it my god too? >:( Never really got a proper response to this challenge.
Hey now, I'm not defending you, just thought you wouldn't mind is all. But I also agree, any god that can't defend itself is not a worthy god.
Another thing I don't get about gods are the envious types, I mean if a god sees something someone else has and gets envious instead of getting that thing, then it's not much of a god to respect.
Quote from: Harmonie on August 03, 2016, 03:29:08 AM
Quote from: Pasta Chick on August 02, 2016, 11:28:46 AM
Since in the US, the current Conservative party is heavily, heavily influenced by religion, I don't think it's a stretch or bias to say more US atheists are liberal. Between that and the other horrible sexist, racist policy the party is currently spewing I distance myself from anything approaching affiliation. But if you took out the religion and bigotry I'd probably be pretty middle of the road...
Add homophobia and transphobia to that, and that's exactly why I can not even begin to even think of affiliating myself with the Republican/conservative party. I find it sickening that we have a party built on these (not that the Democrat party is perfect) and it's just treated like it's all a-okay, that these positions are valid sides, that they are something to be proud of, that they are something to be legislated. It's disgusting. Or perhaps I should say it's frightening.
Not to mention that a lot of Republicans and conservatives (and some Democrats too, just not near as many), have been trying to take away women's rights and women's health services.
Quote from: Essie Mae on August 03, 2016, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: Davin on August 02, 2016, 02:49:16 PM
I don't really give a shit about conservative or liberal, or even political parties. It's fine if the label is applied as a descriptor, but most people seem to use them more prescriptively instead of descriptively. They take sides and close their minds to the side they didn't choose often to a ridiculous and/or hilarious effect. So much confirmation bias, so many straw men, so many other fallacies, and so much irrational hate.
When I vote for and talk about political shit, I don't take sides based on political parties or the faulty conservative/liberal dichotomy. Some things need to stay the same, a lot of things need to change, but hardly anything needs to be regressed. Because of my views, I often conflict with liberals and conservatives. In the US liberals have a slightly higher tendency to say things that are true while conservatives are more prone to pulling "facts" from their asses. Just take a look at where the line is drawn when it comes to global warming.
Well said Davin; very articulate, and although I think you are clear and firm, you don't sound angry to me.
Thank you. I'm not sure what makes Steeler think I am angry, but I don't really care about it either.
Quote from: Davin on August 03, 2016, 02:41:30 PM
Hey now, I'm not defending you, just thought you wouldn't mind is all. But I also agree, any god that can't defend itself is not a worthy god.
The last paragraph was of a very general variety, so in no way directed at you specifically. :) I was just reminded of my standing challenge to believers willing to "take up arms for their LORD"
Quote
Another thing I don't get about gods are the envious types, I mean if a god sees something someone else has and gets envious instead of getting that thing, then it's not much of a god to respect.
Exactly! Jealous of my Bentley? Think yourself a BETTER Bentley and BOOM! The tables hath turnethd. You're god, after all, are you not?!
Quote from: Davin on August 03, 2016, 02:41:30 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on August 02, 2016, 10:18:01 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 02, 2016, 09:34:35 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on August 02, 2016, 09:24:07 PM
He eats veggie-Asmos too. >:( Totally disrespectful.
I didn't think you'd mind me devouring false Asmos.
And what's a proper The Asmo to eat? rattie droppings?! >:(
EDIT: This, by the way, is SO in line with my general viewpoint when it comes to people rushing to defend their poor little gods. If your god is toothless enough to need you to defend it against me, then why would I even consider making it my god too? >:( Never really got a proper response to this challenge.
Hey now, I'm not defending you, just thought you wouldn't mind is all. But I also agree, any god that can't defend itself is not a worthy god.
Another thing I don't get about gods are the envious types, I mean if a god sees something someone else has and gets envious instead of getting that thing, then it's not much of a god to respect.
Quote from: Harmonie on August 03, 2016, 03:29:08 AM
Quote from: Pasta Chick on August 02, 2016, 11:28:46 AM
Since in the US, the current Conservative party is heavily, heavily influenced by religion, I don't think it's a stretch or bias to say more US atheists are liberal. Between that and the other horrible sexist, racist policy the party is currently spewing I distance myself from anything approaching affiliation. But if you took out the religion and bigotry I'd probably be pretty middle of the road...
Add homophobia and transphobia to that, and that's exactly why I can not even begin to even think of affiliating myself with the Republican/conservative party. I find it sickening that we have a party built on these (not that the Democrat party is perfect) and it's just treated like it's all a-okay, that these positions are valid sides, that they are something to be proud of, that they are something to be legislated. It's disgusting. Or perhaps I should say it's frightening.
Not to mention that a lot of Republicans and conservatives (and some Democrats too, just not near as many), have been trying to take away women's rights and women's health services.
Quote from: Essie Mae on August 03, 2016, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: Davin on August 02, 2016, 02:49:16 PM
I don't really give a shit about conservative or liberal, or even political parties. It's fine if the label is applied as a descriptor, but most people seem to use them more prescriptively instead of descriptively. They take sides and close their minds to the side they didn't choose often to a ridiculous and/or hilarious effect. So much confirmation bias, so many straw men, so many other fallacies, and so much irrational hate.
When I vote for and talk about political shit, I don't take sides based on political parties or the faulty conservative/liberal dichotomy. Some things need to stay the same, a lot of things need to change, but hardly anything needs to be regressed. Because of my views, I often conflict with liberals and conservatives. In the US liberals have a slightly higher tendency to say things that are true while conservatives are more prone to pulling "facts" from their asses. Just take a look at where the line is drawn when it comes to global warming.
Well said Davin; very articulate, and although I think you are clear and firm, you don't sound angry to me.
Thank you. I'm not sure what makes Steeler think I am angry, but I don't really care about it either.
No biggy, it's just the way some of your replies look as compared to nearly everyone else. But it is text, hard to judge what someones emotional state is through that.
But like you said, I'm sure it's me that is in error. ;D
Sorry for the giant quote.
Quote from: Steeler on August 04, 2016, 02:06:20 AM
No biggy, it's just the way some of your replies look as compared to nearly everyone else. But it is text, hard to judge what someones emotional state is through that.
But like you said, I'm sure it's me that is in error. ;D
Sorry for the giant quote.
That doesn't explain anything. Because my posts are different I must be angry? That doesn't make sense.
Some of your posts do seem a little angry, Davin, but you say you aren't so I believe you. If I characterized your posts at times as "blunt" that would also fit, so I'll go with that. At other times you seem happy and funny. It's the deception of the printed word, that's all.
Forum etiquette tends to vary as far as quote-by-quote responses go... I tend to find them easier to follow and necessary in forms that encourage debate, and I use them as HAF has no rule against them... But there are forums where they are considered rude and banned.
I think some of these issues are worth being angry about. I may not be mad at a specific person but I am pretty goddamn pissed off about things like politicians who obviously do not understand the female reproductive system attempting to pass not only laws that outlaw what goes between my doctor and I, but actually criminalize natural miscarriages including the normal shedding of fertilized eggs during a period in the process.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 04:12:51 PM
Some of your posts do seem a little angry, Davin[...]
I get that, what I don't get is why some people's internal seeming is wrong.
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubIf I characterized your posts at times as "blunt" that would also fit, so I'll go with that. At other times you seem happy and funny. It's the deception of the printed word, that's all.
Well, if there is nothing useful then I guess that's the end of it.
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 04:12:51 PM
Some of your posts do seem a little angry, Davin[...]
I get that, what I don't get is why some people's internal seeming is wrong.
Because we don't know you personally, and the usual indicators that evolved as part of our communication system (body language, voice inflection/volume, facial expression, etc.) are absent. So when we read words, we project - "If I had said that, I probably would have some anger behind it"). Then we find we were wrong when the poster tells us he wasn't angry. It's just a process of getting to know another person's emotional state when we don't have the usual tools.
I suppose liberal sprinklings of emoticons helps indicate the mood. But that means no emoticons at all if you are being serious - even >:( usually inficates a bit of fun or irony.
Perhaps we need a new protocol, really seriously meant things having two asterisks at each end or something.
Quote from: Pasta Chick on August 04, 2016, 04:24:59 PM
Forum etiquette tends to vary as far as quote-by-quote responses go... I tend to find them easier to follow and necessary in forms that encourage debate, and I use them as HAF has no rule against them... But there are forums where they are considered rude and banned.
I think some of these issues are worth being angry about. I may not be mad at a specific person but I am pretty goddamn pissed off about things like politicians who obviously do not understand the female reproductive system attempting to pass not only laws that outlaw what goes between my doctor and I, but actually criminalize natural miscarriages including the normal shedding of fertilized eggs during a period in the process.
There are a lot of things I think people should be angry about, and that is one of them. I also think that Republicans and conservatives should be angry about stupid their voted representatives make them all look. Because it's not just, "well that Mike Pence trying to make miscarriages a jailable offense sure is stupid and crazy." He was voted in and is a representative of and supported by the Republican party. My point is, it's not just him alone being stupid and hurting women, it's him being stupid and hurting women with the support of Republicans.
I know there are some Republican representatives that are smart and don't go around hurting people through legislation, and that's good and all, but if anything, that should make the reasonable ones even more angry that there are people like Cruz who does things like banning dildos.
I often wish I could get angry more easily. I don't see anything wrong with anger in itself. I do however feel a some pity for some people who still proudly wear the conservative or Republican badges, because they are willingly associating themselves with and supporting idiots that are harming them, the country, and the world.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 05:05:29 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 04:12:51 PM
Some of your posts do seem a little angry, Davin[...]
I get that, what I don't get is why some people's internal seeming is wrong.
Because we don't know you personally, and the usual indicators that evolved as part of our communication system (body language, voice inflection/volume, facial expression, etc.) are absent. So when we read words, we project - "If I had said that, I probably would have some anger behind it"). Then we find we were wrong when the poster tells us he wasn't angry. It's just a process of getting to know another person's emotional state when we don't have the usual tools.
Why would it surprise someone that another person doesn't do things the same way or for the same reason at they do? I think the better assumption to make is that different people are different.
Quote from: Gloucester on August 04, 2016, 05:05:37 PM
I suppose liberal sprinklings of emoticons helps indicate the mood. But that means no emoticons at all if you are being serious - even >:( usually inficates a bit of fun or irony.
Perhaps we need a new protocol, really seriously meant things having two asterisks at each end or something.
Meh, I think emoticons are perfectly valid even when a person is being serious, depending of the context and the emoticon though.
Quote. . . but actually criminalize natural miscarriages including the normal shedding of fertilized eggs during a period in the process.
I probably do not have to ask but, which moron came up with that one, PC?
Still, twisted logic (or twisted people), might think that natural miscarriages might actually be induced by those evil, murderous abortionist doctors!
Sick, sick, sick.
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:13:22 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 05:05:29 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 04:12:51 PM
Some of your posts do seem a little angry, Davin[...]
I get that, what I don't get is why some people's internal seeming is wrong.
Because we don't know you personally, and the usual indicators that evolved as part of our communication system (body language, voice inflection/volume, facial expression, etc.) are absent. So when we read words, we project - "If I had said that, I probably would have some anger behind it"). Then we find we were wrong when the poster tells us he wasn't angry. It's just a process of getting to know another person's emotional state when we don't have the usual tools.
Why would it surprise someone that another person doesn't do things the same way or for the same reason at they do? I think the better assumption to make is that different people are different.
I didn't say it surprised me. You asked why internal "seeming" can be wrong, and I simply gave my take on it. I assume that people are different, but I don't know different in what way until I interact a little. First I projected and thought you were angry at times. Now I understand differently since you've explained yourself. It's just a process. No big deal.
Quote from: Gloucester on August 04, 2016, 05:22:45 PM
Quote. . . but actually criminalize natural miscarriages including the normal shedding of fertilized eggs during a period in the process.
I probably do not have to ask but, which moron came up with that one, PC?
Still, twisted logic (or twisted people), might think that natural miscarriages might actually be induced by those evil, murderous abortionist doctors!
Sick, sick, sick.
Mike Pence, Trump's VP when he signed HB 1337 into law.
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:32:49 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on August 04, 2016, 05:22:45 PM
Quote. . . but actually criminalize natural miscarriages including the normal shedding of fertilized eggs during a period in the process.
I probably do not have to ask but, which moron came up with that one, PC?
Still, twisted logic (or twisted people), might think that natural miscarriages might actually be induced by those evil, murderous abortionist doctors!
Sick, sick, sick.
Mike Pence, Trump's VP when he signed HB 1337 into law.
Yup, didn't need to ask.
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 04:12:51 PM
Some of your posts do seem a little angry, Davin[...]
I get that, what I don't get is why some people's internal seeming is wrong.
I don't get it either, my internal seeming is exhaustively calibrated before I do anything social.
They're probably just wrong in the head.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:13:22 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 05:05:29 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 04:12:51 PM
Some of your posts do seem a little angry, Davin[...]
I get that, what I don't get is why some people's internal seeming is wrong.
Because we don't know you personally, and the usual indicators that evolved as part of our communication system (body language, voice inflection/volume, facial expression, etc.) are absent. So when we read words, we project - "If I had said that, I probably would have some anger behind it"). Then we find we were wrong when the poster tells us he wasn't angry. It's just a process of getting to know another person's emotional state when we don't have the usual tools.
Why would it surprise someone that another person doesn't do things the same way or for the same reason at they do? I think the better assumption to make is that different people are different.
I didn't say it surprised me.
So you didn't think that I was angry and expected me to not be angry even though you said I seemed angry to you? That doesn't make sense.
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubYou asked why internal "seeming" can be wrong, and I simply gave my take on it. I assume that people are different, but I don't know different in what way until I interact a little. First I projected and thought you were angry at times. Now I understand differently since you've explained yourself. It's just a process. No big deal.
You assume people are different but then project yourself onto them? I guess I don't understand what the purpose of that would be, seems like it would lead to more misinterpretations than just taking what a person says as what they say. Then you can get to know them based on what they say instead of casting them through the lens if yourself, which I think would lead to more bias and therefor a more inaccurate understanding of who they actually are. At least instead of an Ecrub Noseerub tinted person.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on August 04, 2016, 05:37:23 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 04:12:51 PM
Some of your posts do seem a little angry, Davin[...]
I get that, what I don't get is why some people's internal seeming is wrong.
I don't get it either, my internal seeming is exhaustively calibrated before I do anything social.
They're probably just wrong in the head.
I don't assume whether they are wrong or not and I am open the idea that I might be able to adjust my behavior to help. But I can't with useless statements of that kind.
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:41:46 PM
So you didn't think that I was angry and expected me to not be angry even though you said I seemed angry to you? That doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. I made an assessment, then when I found out I was wrong I recalibrated. Very simple. Some of your posts seem angry to me, whether I'm right or wrong. Now you have explained that you are not angry. I take you at your word.
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:41:46 PM
You assume people are different but then project yourself onto them? I guess I don't understand what the purpose of that would be, seems like it would lead to more misinterpretations than just taking what a person says as what they say. Then you can get to know them based on what they say instead of casting them through the lens if yourself, which I think would lead to more bias and therefor a more inaccurate understanding of who they actually are. At least instead of an Ecrub Noseerub tinted person.
OK, not trying to start an argument, just explaining an impression I had. Maybe I do it wrong.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 06:09:56 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:41:46 PM
So you didn't think that I was angry and expected me to not be angry even though you said I seemed angry to you? That doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. I made an assessment, then when I found out I was wrong I recalibrated. Very simple. Some of your posts seem angry to me, whether I'm right or wrong. Now you have explained that you are not angry. I take you at your word.
Then it should be fair to say that you were surprised that reality is not as you erroneously assumed.
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubQuote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:41:46 PM
You assume people are different but then project yourself onto them? I guess I don't understand what the purpose of that would be, seems like it would lead to more misinterpretations than just taking what a person says as what they say. Then you can get to know them based on what they say instead of casting them through the lens if yourself, which I think would lead to more bias and therefor a more inaccurate understanding of who they actually are. At least instead of an Ecrub Noseerub tinted person.
OK, not trying to start an argument, just explaining an impression I had. Maybe I do it wrong.
I said a while ago, "Well, if there is nothing useful then I guess that's the end of it." and you continued after that. I was fine with ending it there and really at any point since you can't provide anything useful beyond which I'm already aware.
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 07:38:34 PM
Then it should be fair to say that you were surprised that reality is not as you erroneously assumed.
No, you are simply wrong. Deciding that reality was not like I assumed does not make me "surprised." It just educates me and leads to me changing my mind. I allowed you to inform me of your emotional state - I accepted it when you said you were not angry. You should allow me to inform you of my emotional state - you should accept it when I say that I was not "surprised."
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 07:38:34 PM
Then it should be fair to say that you were surprised that reality is not as you erroneously assumed.
No, you are simply wrong. Deciding that reality was not like I assumed does not make me "surprised." It just educates me and leads to me changing my mind. I allowed you to inform me of your emotional state - I accepted it when you said you were not angry. You should allow me to inform you of my emotional state - you should accept it when I say that I was not "surprised."
That you incorrectly assumed I was angry, then to unexpectedly discover that I wasn't is a fair and reasonable application of one of the definitions of "surprised." That simply means that I am simply not wrong, simply.
Quote from: Gloucester on August 04, 2016, 05:05:37 PM
I suppose liberal sprinklings of emoticons helps indicate the mood.
I agree. :smilenod:
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 08:10:34 PM
That you incorrectly assumed I was angry, then to unexpectedly discover that I wasn't is a fair and reasonable application of one of the definitions of "surprised." That simply means that I am simply not wrong, simply.
Now you are projecting on me. Discovering that one is wrong does not necessitate surprise.
I am politely withdrawing from this interminable conversation. Neither of us convinced the other, so we are at an impasse. Good day.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 08:14:04 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 08:10:34 PM
That you incorrectly assumed I was angry, then to unexpectedly discover that I wasn't is a fair and reasonable application of one of the definitions of "surprised." That simply means that I am simply not wrong, simply.
Now you are projecting on me. Discovering that one is wrong does not necessitate surprise.
I am politely withdrawing from this interminable conversation. Neither of us convinced the other, so we are at an impasse. Good day.
I'm not projecting on you at all, I'm simply using what you said. Have fun.
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:32:49 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on August 04, 2016, 05:22:45 PM
Quote. . . but actually criminalize natural miscarriages including the normal shedding of fertilized eggs during a period in the process.
I probably do not have to ask but, which moron came up with that one, PC?
Still, twisted logic (or twisted people), might think that natural miscarriages might actually be induced by those evil, murderous abortionist doctors!
Sick, sick, sick.
Mike Pence, Trump's VP when he signed HB 1337 into law.
Yup, that's the main one right now. Hence the Periods For Pence movement, a group of women tracking his hotline numbers so they can call in and report to Pence every time they get their period, of course with excruciating detail. We wouldn't want to be jailed for failing to report, after all! Amusing, although I doubt it's doing anything meaningful at this point in the game.
It's happened before, though. Generally if you want to write a really thorough anti-abortion law, you have to include abortive medications and self-injury to induce abortion. Which leaves no room in the law to exclude things like a fertilized egg or zygote naturally passing. Especially since many of these bills also seek to restrict how late in a term an abortion can take place. AZ, for instance, passed or was trying to pass a law that would make every woman legally pregnant several weeks before she was actually physically pregnant. I've lost track of which have been shot down or not at this point - it's not good for me to track too closely, especially in states my vote has no sway.
There is a peculiar kind of madness that America has made all of its own.
Quote from: Pasta Chick on August 04, 2016, 08:39:30 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:32:49 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on August 04, 2016, 05:22:45 PM
Quote. . . but actually criminalize natural miscarriages including the normal shedding of fertilized eggs during a period in the process.
I probably do not have to ask but, which moron came up with that one, PC?
Still, twisted logic (or twisted people), might think that natural miscarriages might actually be induced by those evil, murderous abortionist doctors!
Sick, sick, sick.
Mike Pence, Trump's VP when he signed HB 1337 into law.
Yup, that's the main one right now. Hence the Periods For Pence movement, a group of women tracking his hotline numbers so they can call in and report to Pence every time they get their period, of course with excruciating detail. We wouldn't want to be jailed for failing to report, after all! Amusing, although I doubt it's doing anything meaningful at this point in the game.
It's happened before, though. Generally if you want to write a really thorough anti-abortion law, you have to include abortive medications and self-injury to induce abortion. Which leaves no room in the law to exclude things like a fertilized egg or zygote naturally passing. Especially since many of these bills also seek to restrict how late in a term an abortion can take place. AZ, for instance, passed or was trying to pass a law that would make every woman legally pregnant several weeks before she was actually physically pregnant. I've lost track of which have been shot down or not at this point - it's not good for me to track too closely, especially in states my vote has no sway.
:wtf: Ok, this can't be for real. I refuse to believe that there are human beings who are
that intellectually challenged living today.
Oh, it's real alright. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21721-arizona-decrees-pregnancy-starts-before-conception/)
Quote from: Pasta Chick on August 04, 2016, 09:41:06 PM
Oh, it's real alright. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21721-arizona-decrees-pregnancy-starts-before-conception/)
OMG! :watching:
^^^
Wow! :o
(https://8583b52b4a309671f69d-b436b898353c7dc300b5887446a26466.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/8833199_women-really-really-super-really-hate_5df8b37c_m.jpg?bg=624D51)
...And the guy's all like "damn straight, Skippy" ;D
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:46:40 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on August 04, 2016, 05:37:23 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 04:12:51 PM
Some of your posts do seem a little angry, Davin[...]
I get that, what I don't get is why some people's internal seeming is wrong.
I don't get it either, my internal seeming is exhaustively calibrated before I do anything social.
They're probably just wrong in the head.
I don't assume whether they are wrong or not and I am open the idea that I might be able to adjust my behavior to help. But I can't with useless statements of that kind.
I take my role as forum fool seriously even if you don't.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on August 06, 2016, 06:12:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 05:46:40 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on August 04, 2016, 05:37:23 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 04, 2016, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 04, 2016, 04:12:51 PM
Some of your posts do seem a little angry, Davin[...]
I get that, what I don't get is why some people's internal seeming is wrong.
I don't get it either, my internal seeming is exhaustively calibrated before I do anything social.
They're probably just wrong in the head.
I don't assume whether they are wrong or not and I am open the idea that I might be able to adjust my behavior to help. But I can't with useless statements of that kind.
I take my role as forum fool seriously even if you don't.
I'm not just a fool on this forum.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on August 06, 2016, 06:12:32 PM
I take my role as forum fool seriously even if you don't.
:lol:
Quote from: Firebird on August 08, 2016, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on August 06, 2016, 06:12:32 PM
I take my role as forum fool seriously even if you don't.
:lol:
You're in good company Firebird:
Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
That's a great quote, I'm definitely using it next time someone says that atheists are fools for not believing in the Bible.