Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.)

So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) (Page 11)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2017, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here's how I've been trying to tie the post you quoted back into the original.

The original claim was the Republican ban on gun research shows ill intent.

I'm arguing if one digs deeper, it's not that simple. One can support the position without the ill intent.
Is there a reason to ban this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/b...rove.html?_r=1
For example, Mr. Ballmer, said: “You know it’s not legal to know how many firearms that are in this country? The government is not allowed to collect the number.”

There is data for the number of firearms manufactured, licenses, inspections, “along with other data, but not a total,” he said. “I can’t show it! I’m shocked! But the N.R.A. apparently has lobbied in such a way government can’t report the data.”
(I'm taking Mr.Balmer at his word. My google-fu can neither confirm nor deny his claim)


Regardless, that's why I included more than one example. Are you conceding the Global Warming point?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2017, 08:21 PM
 
I personally think there's an excellent reason to ban directly measuring the number of guns in the country.

Again, just like with the original claims about gun research, the specifics are irrelevant. The question is am I arriving at my conclusion in good faith, or is that impossible? That it's impossible is what I feel is implied with the question. Has it been conceded my conclusions are based in good faith, or is their still an agenda I'm refusing to admit to?

Is it possible alternate universe subego may lose patience when his good faith arguments are met with consistent accusations of a hidden agenda? Might this prompt alternate universe subego to start being a dickhole about it? Something which would then get used as "further" evidence of his bad faith?

Global warming isn't a subject I pay much attention to, so my authority to comment is limited, however my experience has been the fundamentals of the argument apply across the board.

The opposing team acts in better faith than they appear to.

Note this is distinct from being right.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 21, 2017 at 08:32 PM. )
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2017, 06:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Global warming isn't a subject I pay much attention to, so my authority to comment is limited, however my experience has been the fundamentals of the argument apply across the board.

The opposing team acts in better faith than they appear to.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is one of my huge beefs with Democrats. They think Republicans know the truth, but deny it in pursuit of their twisty-mustache schemes.
It is possible you have a bit more bias than you would like to admit? While it seems you believe you possess (and you most certainly project an image of) thoughtful neutrality, when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt, you construct logic-stretching justifications for the behaviour and statements of many right-wing figures- full of thoughtful and well meaning nuance. Yet you readily dismiss 'Democrats' and 'the left' as a single misguided entity.

This is my problem with with people like you. You always make sweeping generalisations. It kills me that I have to point out the intentional irony in this last statement, but sadly, I know the audience.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2017, 10:56 AM
 
I think it's more likely I have biases I'm not conscious of than unwilling to admit. I try very hard to be frank about my biases.

In case it isn't clear, that last statement was meant to culture my appearance of thoughtful neutrality.

Seriously though, I'm put in the position of justifying right wing behavior to the left wing more than the converse because of the political makeup of the people participating in this forum.

The left here benefits from it too, it just manifests differently. I go out of my way not to lose my cool in these discussions, even when I'm getting insulted (which I was in this thread, numerous times), because I believe in the principle I put forth. My opponent argues in better faith than they appear to.

Allow me to be so presumptuous as to declare what I believe is the most important lesson in all of life.

The way most people divine the motivations of others is to put themselves in the other person's shoes.

This often provides the following result: I'd only do this if I were an asshole, therefore the other person is an asshole.

Everybody does this, and it's just wrong. Oh so wrong.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 22, 2017 at 11:08 AM. )
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
It is possible you have a bit more bias than you would like to admit? While it seems you believe you possess (and you most certainly project an image of) thoughtful neutrality, when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt, you construct logic-stretching justifications for the behaviour and statements of many right-wing figures- full of thoughtful and well meaning nuance. Yet you readily dismiss 'Democrats' and 'the left' as a single misguided entity.
Heal thyself, Doctor.

Weren't you the one on about how a bunch of DNS requests from a random Russian bank server about the Trump organization's main mail domain was evidence of a conspiracy?

Perhaps it is not his inability to find rationale to explain the behavior we see from individuals, but your complete inability to consider perspectives that are not your own?

This is my problem with with people like you. You always make sweeping generalisations. It kills me that I have to point out the intentional irony in this last statement, but sadly, I know the audience.
Ah, so your problem with "people like you" is that they make sweeping generalizations, justified in your mind by your own sweeping generalization?

If you recognize the irony of your stance as being a logical fallacy, how can you claim to put forth a valid observation?

You're full on displaying the big problem with "people like you" in that if we are not with you, we're against you. Guess what, we're against you in that scenario. Don't blame subego for trying to help you understand perspectives that aren't in lock step with your narrow worldview.

There is a difference between agreeing with a perspective and understanding it. Sadly, you are malicious in your failure at the latter which makes honest discussions turn into brain-dead poop flinging. Subego is one of the few here that virtually never slings poop, and your response to that is to acknowledge he doesn't fling poop then go back to your conspiracy land where since he doesn't agree with you, he must be secretly flinging poop.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 01:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Heal thyself, Doctor.
I stopped engaging with you on the previous thread because you were getting so oddly heated, but I'm not going to stand by and let you lie about me.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Weren't you the one on about how a bunch of DNS requests from a random Russian bank server about the Trump organization's main mail domain was evidence of a conspiracy?
No. I never said anything remotely along those lines. You continually attacked me claiming I was, but I never did. You are just lying. I said the DNS activity was 'notable and weird' and the fact that it was being investigated was totally reasonable. After your final rant that it was impossible for unusual DNS activity to be anything to worry about because (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'the backbone of the internet is based on DNS' is such ignorant crap it wasn't worth responding to. This is how most attacks work- they exploit a vulnerability in a system- do a google search on DNS based attacks- pages of them, along with http based attacks, ftp based attacks, ssh based attacks, ICMP based attacks, SMS based attacks, etc, etc, etc.

I never claimed there was a conspiracy. I said on almost EVERY SINGLE post on the subject that the most likely scenario was that it was an innocent anomaly- and that even if there was something nefarious going on, the Trump server could easily have been the target of an attack rather than a participant in a conspiracy.

You can't just make stuff up about people and call it a argument.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Perhaps it is not his inability to find rationale to explain the behavior we see from individuals, but your complete inability to consider perspectives that are not your own?
Maybe so. But at least I don't attack people based on nonsense I've created in my own head.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Ah, so your problem with "people like you" is that they make sweeping generalizations, justified in your mind by your own sweeping generalization?

If you recognize the irony of your stance as being a logical fallacy, how can you claim to put forth a valid observation?

You're full on displaying the big problem with "people like you" in that if we are not with you, we're against you. Guess what, we're against you in that scenario. Don't blame subego for trying to help you understand perspectives that aren't in lock step with your narrow worldview.
Write an idiot-proof disclaimer, the world will make a bigger idiot.

MAYBE it wasn't clear, but I'm guessing Subego and the majority of the people that read that statement recognised it as it was intended, a joke. I was worried a few outliers may not pick up on the sarcasm so I begrudgingly added the disclaimer to make it clear.

But then you came along...

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
There is a difference between agreeing with a perspective and understanding it. Sadly, you are malicious in your failure at the latter which makes honest discussions turn into brain-dead poop flinging. Subego is one of the few here that virtually never slings poop, and your response to that is to acknowledge he doesn't fling poop then go back to your conspiracy land where since he doesn't agree with you, he must be secretly flinging poop.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume there is a coherent thought buried in here somewhere, but I'll be dammed if I can find it.
( Last edited by Paco500; Yesterday at 04:32 AM. )
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Yesterday, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I stopped engaging with you on the previous thread because you were getting so oddly heated, but I'm not going to stand by and let you lie about me.
There's no lying here Paco - everyone here saw the thread. I don't fault you for not understanding the technology. I fault you because I asked you a basic question about your argument with every lattitude including the hypothetical offered that you simply ignored. You called me heated as an excuse to bow out, but I only got heated when your intellect had already bowed out and your partisan shilling was all that was left.

No. I never said anything remotely along those lines. You continually attacked me claiming I was, but I never did. You are just lying. I said the DNS activity was 'notable and weird' and the fact that it was being investigated was totally reasonable.
You called for an investigation. That isn't you "just" calling it weird and notable.

Gun control is "weird and notable" and anyone advocating for it should be investigated. Prove it's not.

After your final rant that it was impossible for unusual DNS activity to be anything to worry about because (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'the backbone of the internet is based on DNS' is such ignorant crap it wasn't worth responding to.
Ok Mr. "I managed an IS security team" You got the paraphrasing wrong but we don't need to rehash it here. I asked you the same question 14 times in bold, in red, in italics, yet you never even addressed the question directly. This is what led to my frustration and my conclusion that you don't understand the technology, as it's answer(s) would be the foundation of literally any basis for wrongdoing possible.


This is how most attacks work- they exploit a vulnerability in a system- do a google search on DNS based attacks- pages of them, along with http based attacks, ftp based attacks, ssh based attacks, ICMP based attacks, SMS based attacks, etc, etc, etc.
So, as part of Trump colluding with the Russians a random bank server was planning a DNS or another attack on his organization's general mail server to ....do what exactly? Weird collusion that would be.

I never claimed there was a conspiracy. I said on almost EVERY SINGLE post on the subject that the most likely scenario was that it was an innocent anomaly-
You never said it was "the most likely". Far from it - if that were "the most likely" in your mind you wouldn't have been calling for an investigation. Sure I was hyperbolic, but my more reasoned approach was simply ignored in your responses. I would have been happy if you could have answered my one question that I kept asking over and over to no avail.


and that even if there was something nefarious going on, the Trump server could easily have been the target of an attack rather than a participant in a conspiracy.
So do you believe the FBI should investigate every DNS request run from russia on government any servers related to high ranking government officials? Afterall, they would all be "weird and notable" by your definition.

You can't just make stuff up about people and call it a argument. [/quote]
I can't really make an argument against conspiracy theories and other logical fallacies. Trash in, trash out. I told you early you would get what you give.
Maybe so. But at least I don't attack people based on nonsense I've created in my own head.
You just did it, here in this thread, with your "disclaimer".

Write an idiot-proof disclaimer, the world will make a bigger idiot.
I know the audience here isn't a disclaimer. It's an insult that demonstrates your obvious feelings of supposed moral superiority. In other words, you like the smell of your own farts too much.

MAYBE it wasn't clear, but I'm guessing Subego and the majority of the people that read that statement recognised it as it was intended, a joke. I was worried a few outliers may not pick up on the sarcasm so I begrudgingly added the disclaimer to make it clear.
So you start by calling into question his motives, then end with a "sarcastic joke" that contains an insult about "the audience here"? Forgive me Paco, but your attempt at a light-hearted jab was poorly constructed.

But then you came along...

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume there is a coherent thought buried in here somewhere, but I'll be dammed if I can find it.
I'd be more than happy to help you understand the perspectives not aligned with your narrative which seem to give you trouble, but you've got to be open to listening with an assumption of good-faith. All I can promise is that you will receive the same courtesy in turn. Like I've said - you'll get what you give.


/derail

Legit question for all - What benefit do you think the government collecting this data would have over the myriad private entities that have already done so?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:58 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2