Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Suffice it to say I think this whole exercise is reductive. I’ve said as much already and explained why. You can argue that there’s some overlap and I agree that there is, but I don’t think that’s sufficient. Stripping away the entire context that makes these two decisions distinct to focus solely on consent doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
But I'm telling you that there are distinctions between them. You can claim they're inconsequential, but so far, your only justification for that conflation is that both include loss of consent, which is true, but also only one small part of the issue. For that matter, you're creating further asymmetry in this relationship. If a mother "opts out" via an abortion, then both functionally opt out. If a father opts out but the mother does not, then the mother is left with all the financial and physical responsibilities. There's a real world cost to those women that, I would argue, outstrips any benefit these men gain from being able to opt out of the cost of child support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I'm not justifying a difference based on location. The differences are multifaceted: the mother has made a commitment to have the child, has gone through with the pregnancy, and is currently raising the child, which includes the financial burdens involved. You talked about how paying child support is a form of enslavement, but that resembles the commitment that a mother makes to their child. The father is being held to the same commitment. You could argue that this is solely an issue of consent and that all that matters is who got to consent to what, but that's reductive. Issues of consent are a subset of the issues involved, not their entirety.
In general, though, the argument you're making seems to be that being compelled to pay is functionally the same as the burdens placed on the mother. I personally wouldn't consider what a mother goes through in order to give birth equivalent to financial payments, but hey, what do I know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Still pretty prohibitive. Would be interested to see a comparison of infant death rates with Canada.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your point was that they could kill their infant child. There’s a difference between saying that that’s free and clear and saying that it isn’t considered equivalent to murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There’s a distinction between infanticide and murder in their criminal code. That doesn’t mean that infanticide is legal in Canada.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
That's an odd comparison. No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive. If you wanted to make this somewhat comparable, you would have to argue that the father could refuse to pay child support in utero, which isn't a thing in the first place so it's not something that a father can refuse to do. I also agree with Ehyeh that it's not symmetrical in terms of the specifics of the burdens the child places on the mother versus the father. Child support is not equivalent to the physical burdens of pregnancy, nor is ending that child support functionally equivalent to an abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
Haven’t discussed the specific timing of it yet. You’ll hear about it when we settle on one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
Sorry to see you go, but it sounds like you've got a plan and I hope things work out well for you. Hope to see you back on here someday.
As for this set of advice, I just want to emphasize one of them:
During rebuttals, take your opponent's argument in its best case. You do not want to leave ambiguity where the judge can think "well, I can imagine a scenario where this argument might be able to stand up to these refutations better, so perhaps this refutation does not stand up if you took the argument in good faith." Taking your opponent's argument in its best case is advice I got repeatedly (mostly because I was bad at following it lmao). Show how, even in the absolute best case scenario with the kindest possible assumptions, the argument is still incorrect and does not outweigh your arguments. Then go on to say that "if their argument fails in the best case scenario with the kindest possible assumptions, in a realistic scenario, the argument completely and utterly falls apart."
I'm emphasizing this because I think it's often overlooked. We become so dead set on winning that the goal is more all-or-nothing where the goal is to leave none of your opponent's arguments standing by the end. I think it's important to recognize that voters commonly find ways in which both sides are doing something right, so debaters are best served by working with a similar mindset. Your opponent most likely has arguments that a voter would find persuasive. "Even if" statements are particularly helpful, in my opinion, since they engage with how a voter might be thinking directly and explain why, if they are thinking that way, they should come around to your side regardless. Don't see enough of those, honestly.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I was literally suggesting that anyone could run a MEEP, yourself included if you feel strongly enough about it. Anyone could have pushed for and run a MEEP over that time. There are a lot of proposals that we’re not going to personally run as MEEPs, particularly right after we finished with the previous MEEP, but that doesn’t mean that no one can run them and it doesn’t mean that the mods won’t respect the results.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not sure why you’d think I’m insincere. The election process is run by moderators. Right now, the plan is to run another election should a vote remove Airmax or should his term in office run up. If a MEEP dissolves the office before then, what exactly do you think we would do? Run an election anyway?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Because we had a MEEP that authorized it. Anyone is welcome to hold another MEEP in order to see if the desire to keep the position is gone.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
There are a lot of basic assumptions built into this that would not apply in a real world setting. The way you've set this up, neither population is growing and one is contracting. They both have fixed rates of gun deaths, though you don't include any statistics on gun violence rates, so it's entirely possible that both populations experience some degree of gun violence. Both islands clearly don't feature any children, since they can't own guns in basically any population.
So yeah, there would be fewer questions as to a probable cause for the higher death toll on Island B, though it strikes me that taking away one of the methods to resolve the causes is not terribly smart, particularly given that one of the populations is contracting at a rapid rate. If we do come down on a specific cause of the death toll on Island B, we would presumably want to stop those gun deaths. That can take a lot of forms, including incarcerations and/or institutionalizations. I think that taking guns from those people would meaningfully affect gun deaths. Seems like something that is worth testing since you have such a nicely controlled population.
But I think what you're getting at is the imposition of specific gun controls, and I'm unclear what those are. Could you clarify what you would view as gun control in this hypothetical scenario that would stray outside of what you think is reasonable?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re welcome to hold a site-wide vote to evaluate interest in removing Airmax from the presidency. Based on the results, which I suspect would be strong, we could seek a potential replacement in an entirely separate vote. And, just to clarify (not that I feel it needs to be said because it was made rather obvious), thett is not the acting or elected Vice President as that role does not exist. No one would automatically slate into the role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Excited as well. Details are slim, so no word yet on where it will be released. Hulu or FOX are probably most likely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I think "King of the Hill" was the better of Mike Judge's animations.
No contest, completely agree. Watched a lot more King of the Hill, liked it a lot more. Hear they’re planning to do more of it after aging up the characters?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
As someone who grew up during the MTV era and watched some of the show... it's really just stupid fun, and for me at least, it got old fast. I watched both movies and, yeah, they're really just bigger versions of the same thing. There's something fun about seeing how the "normal" people around these two react to them, but that's really all there is to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
What's your general argument for abortion? I respect you as a logical and knowledgeable user, so am keen to know.
I can go more in-depth, but it breaks down to three pieces:
1) The beginning of personhood isn't something that we can establish scientifically. In the absence of that certainty, I don't think the question of when a person begins is pertinent.
2) Determining whose rights (the unborn or the mother) matter more is also tricky, partly for that reason (comparing between the rights of a known person and an unknown person) and partly due to a set of other factors that affect whether the unborn will successfully be born into the world alive.
3) The set of harms that result from implementing anti-abortion laws is easily predictable. This is the biggest sticking point for me - I don't think there are good ways to implement the kinds of policies that a pro-life standpoint (treating abortion as murder or even akin to murder) would demand, and the degree of harm that would result from these policies is substantial.
I can get into all three of these, but that last one in particular is the one that drives most of my views on abortion when it comes to policy. In the abstract (i.e. taking policy out of it and just discussing it as a moral issue), I think the issue is much more complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You didn't ask to clarify my stance. You asked a single question about whether I'd support any mother murdering an infant out of convenience. I said no.
If you want clarification with regards to my stance on abortion, ask.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
…I’m sorry, did you mistake my refusal to engage with an argument that was clearly strawmanning my perspective with fear? Don’t know how you managed that, but hey, here we are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So your response to my telling you that you've entirely misrepresented my argument is to saying that I'm avoiding the problem? You're the one who directed this at me, dude. You clearly know my argument already, so why don't you explain my position to me so that I know what I'm avoiding?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not interested in engaging with an argument like this for a number of reasons, particularly as my position has little to do with the inherent humanity of the unborn. My answer to your question, of course, is no. I've got lots of problems with saying that that should apply to a multitude of stages of development of the unborn, none of which have anything to do with questioning their humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I disagree with everything you said in that last sentence. Saw this coming a mile away, and it is most definitely not "a W".
Created:
I'll join.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
My experience is that I get the most flux on the P/J side, though I often end up close to the line on I/E as well (it's like your T/F split - I'm still consistently introverted, despite how close I usually am).
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Removed it, though as I don't have a profile made up for that site, the password is useless. Still, thanks for the heads up.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah, I took a handful of them. The one I mentioned earlier is the 16Personalities test, for which I got INFJ
I took two others that were recommended because neither is dichotomy-based in terms of its answers and where they apply. Both of them gave me the same result and both align pretty closely with what I've gotten previously. The P/J distinction has always been a bit of a toss up for me, so on that front, I'm not surprised.
John's Personality Test: ISTJ (this one has the fewest questions up front, but it expanded twice because I was apparently more difficult to read - ended up being 35)
Keys2cognition: ISTJ (45 questions)
Edit: saw your post with the humanmetrics link and took that. Same result: ISTJ. Looks like the tests fall into two pretty distinct categories for me, either slating me more into the INF(P/J) group or the ISTJ group. I think the latter set is more accurate.
Created:
Just re-took this on a different site with a scaling system and got a similar result, though this one at least gave me the scale. I've definitely gotten more intuitive with time, but I'm close to the line. Thinking and feeling is even closer. Seems I've gotten much less polarized on these two over time, which is intriguing. I wonder if I'd get the same result with the long version, though since that costs, I won't be taking it anytime soon.
I do think there's value in doing this just to see how your personality shifts over time. It's not so much that you seat yourself in a single box out of the 16 (I think most of us straddle at least two of these - at this point, I think I straddle 3 or 4 of them), but that you get some idea of the biases of your personality.
Created:
I think I must have been in a strange mood when I took this:
When I've taken the long-form version of this, I land in ISTP with a strong emphasis on the S and the T, so it's odd that I landed in NF on this one. Guessing a combination of the number of questions and the lack of a scale on which to answer these affects where I land.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Honestly though I hate playing as mafia. It gets very boring very fast. You always feel yourself leaning into something mean too, like lynching WF and his responses back to me, I couldn't help but apologise. That2 was always kinda the plan for our lynch in final DP too, laying down all sorts of subtle pressures about wrong lynches in preceding DPs and which I might have leaned more into if needed. Her "Finally" post and vote for WF broke my heart a little lol. It's the game though I guess.
Yeah, I was just finishing typing something when I saw I got hammered. Didn't expect to be able to come back from where we were, but I was hoping that everyone on town would take their time and consider. Guess That2 wasn't patient enough for that, and she sussed me going back to DP2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yeah, I’ll admit that we lost the thread on Wylted in DP2 and when picked it up in DP3, we let his claim sway us into a later lynch. Shouldn’t have happened.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, I definitely fucked that up. Shocked that there was absolutely no investigative role in town. The moment Badger claimed an investigative role, it gave him the perfect cover. Ballsy claim since you probably didn’t know there were no investigative roles on town.
In retrospect, I should’ve pushed for Speed’s lynch in DP3 when many of us were on the same page about him, though I think I would still have lynched most anyone (save MC) before Badger with this role setup. So it probably wouldn’t have ended well anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, I could be making too much of this since it didn't come from GP, but Mharman did say that:
It's possible that he just came up with this as part of a fake claim to have a similar dynamic to the Lynchproof, but it sticks out to me that there is a deeper balance to this. Doesn't overwhelm the reasons I'm sussing GP, but it does give me pause.
Created:
Posted in:
Unvote
I’m just realizing that there is another symmetry between MC’s and GP’s roles: they both cease in later DPs. Need to rethink this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
If we're voting one of the "functional vanillas" because of balance, we should be voting That2 for what I was citing earlier. Behaviorally they are more suspicious than GP by a lot.At least with GP, his role reflects off of my own. He's also playing essentially to his meta.And as far as sucky claims go, I'm wondering about WF's albeit I don't know much on this subject. Didn't the Seahawks completely demolish the Bronco's in a relatively recent superbowl? How are the Seahawks a mediocre team?
I'm not sussing That2 too much over what she said earlier. Her logic in that first post was a bit convoluted, but her vote on you was placed after there were already 4 other votes down and, like the rest of us, seemed like a genuine attempt to re-test your Lynchproof. Maybe there was more to it, but if her goal is actually to push a mislynch of you later in the game, it's not going to get her anywhere. It was a strange choice to focus on that element of your claim, but I'm stuck between believing it was for the purpose of trying to figure out why there wasn't an NK and actually trying to push a lynch down the road.
Anyway, as far as my justification goes, the Seahawks have been to 3 Super Bowls since 2006 and won 1 in 2014. Calling that a Vanilla performance depends a bit on your perspective, though I will note that the Chicago Bears were also Vanilla and they had a similar overall record with Super Bowls (2 visits, 1 win, though the win was back in '86).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
But you I have read, and there's been so much out of the way in your posts. Sorry WF, this is my read. GP I've also read and he's hard town at this point. What option would you ever have here besides to bus anyway?
I really don't know what you mean "there's been so much out of the way in your posts," and I haven't seen any good reasons to townread GP. I also don't know why you feel that it was my only option as scum to bus both of my scum partners with two votes on me, one of which was on there for the express purpose of getting my full claim (and subsequently removed). As far as I can tell, there is still reason to sus other players in this game as well (That2, Danielle, and SirAnon are still playing) so I don't know why you think my only choices were the two people whom you also believe are my apparent scum partners. But hey, maybe your POE is just better than mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Considering you're basically town confirmed from where I'm sitting, I think it's odd that you keep pushing for my lynch. I'm actively sussing two of your three scum reads - Speed and Wylted - so I guess you think I'm actively bussing both of my scum partners? I get that you've had an FOS on me for a while, but I figured you'd at least consider my more recent posts.
Also, I honestly don't know why you're still sussing MC considering that we've confirmed he is lynchproof in two consecutive DPs. It would be pretty bastard modding to give us a lynchproof scum, and entirely unnecessary for that same scum to out themselves as lynchable late game. Why wouldn't he just claim that he will remain lynchproof throughout?
Created:
Posted in:
And that makes 6 Vanillas/functional Vanillas. Yep, I don't believe that. In a game that includes so many actual Vanillas (4 or 5, depending on whether this claim is accurate), why add a Hated? I'm not sure how much I'm buying Speed's claim, but I'm definitely not buying GP's now.
VTL GP
Created:
Posted in:
I haven't claimed yet, but given that we are now in DP3 and that I am absolutely willing to push Speed for a claim at this point (as far as I can tell, he's the only person in this game not to have claimed his character or role, whereas at least Danielle has soft-claimed a role that she has been breadcrumbing for a bit now), I think it's warranted to want my full claim, though many of you probably know it already based on my posts in DP2.
I'm the Seattle Seahawks and I'm Vanilla. The justification is that we're known for being mediocre and never giving Russell Wilson the tools he needs to be effective. This is the reason why I was arguing that Town is likely relatively underpowered in this game in DP2, given that almost half of us don't have PRs, and why it's possible that not all the PRs we have are balanced out. We have two known Vanillas plus me and That2, assuming that she's town. I don't trust GP's claim for all the reasons I've already covered, though I also just don't buy that town is functionally half Vanillas. He couldn't have known that up front, so his claim seemed safe when he made it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The justification makes sense as does the role given the team it's associated with, but you softclaimed a role that counterbalances GP's claim. This is basically a Hunter that's triggered by a lynch. How does this counterbalance a Hated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I'm Green Bay Packers, honorary cop/tracker x1 each, had to be used first two NP's. Justification was my team won the first two super bowls ever + superbowl cup is named after our coach, hence honorary.
Got it, though the "had to be used [during the] first two NP's" is an odd addendum. Don't think I've seen that before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Yeah, there's a good deal I didn't like about badger's behavior, though with this claim on the table, it's pretty unlikely that he's scum.
Agreed on Wylted. I think it's time he gave us a full claim at minimum, we'll see what he says. VTL Wylted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I'll give my thoughts on those two for you too. The Wylted report probably comes close to confirming him town but for the number of vanilla townies in the game. Still I expect if he is mafia, he's going to explode or some shit. Honestly, I wish I'd used my cop report N1 but I got to really scumreading Barney after the DP and I figured tracker report is potentially more info that cop report. Visit/visitor. Afterwards when he no visited I saw an idea there that he might be town for not voting on oro. Helped along to it obviously.The WF report means nothing. Lawyers, godfathers, whatever. Town seemingly has 3 roles to stop kills. Mafia roles are definitely muddying our investigations. Also lawyer is a role easy to conceive of for this sort of theme.
That changes things quite a bit. So you're a JOAT then? I won't ask what your other roles are, but based on these results, I can understand why you didn't claim before this DP. I also understand your interpretations. Wouldn't be terribly surprised if there was a mafia JOAT as well , which could include a 1X Lawyer and would explain the use of a Strongman NP1 but not NP2.
As for the result on Wylted, I'd say that his not having visited anyone doesn't tell us much. This is likely a 3 scum game and whoever was scum clearly did use the Strongman, so all your result tells us is that he wasn't the one who performed the NK and he didn't use a PR on someone. I'm still scumreading him.
As for you, assuming that you aren't CC'd, I see no reason not to buy this claim. So far, no one else has claimed an investigative role. That shifts my suspicions over to Speed as the third scum.
Created:
Posted in:
After skimming through the previous DPs, I've changed up my reads a bit.
We have two lynches to work from, and I think it's likely that at least one scum was on both lynches, possibly more. So I'll start with the overlap: SirAnon, MC and Badger.
SirAnon - He's probably the least sus of the trio, but I do have reservations. It's not so much that the justification rubs me the wrong way, but rather the role itself sticks out. That being said, SirAnon was the one to point out that scum might not have role claims based on what Mharman has divulged so far, and while that might have just been a way to get us to townread him, it also revealed that the kind of role he has claimed is likely to come from scum who would want to avoid being CC'd. Seems like he'd be undercutting himself by pointing that out. Still townread him behaviorally.
MC - Behaviorally, I think MC's scum, but based on the fact that we've now tested his lynchproof two DPs in a row, I just don't see a reason to pursue him. We can't lynch him even if we want to, but despite the balance being weird and so much of his role being weird, I have to buy that MC is lynchproof, that it wasn't a one-time thing, and that that makes it exceedingly unlikely that he's scum. That2 pointed out that "MC can get lynched in MYLO/LYLO," though that's really only a reason to keep him on the table for the future, and that actually makes it more difficult to sus him. Having a lynchproof scum who clarifies that they can be lynched in later DPs just doesn't make sense.
Badger - Yeah, this one's weird. I still largely townread him behaviorally, but I seriously do not understand why he was on the lynch if he was so confident that Earth was town. That could just be because he was fed up and just wanted a lynch at all, or maybe he was trying to prove himself right, but it's strange behavior regardless. It's making me second-guess my townread.
So, from this group, Badger is the most sus to me at the moment.
As for others to consider, I'll start with anyone who was on either of the two lynches separately. Starting with DP1:
That2 - I'm getting a pretty hard townread on That2. The early DP2 Vanilla claim is just an incredibly weird move for scum to make coming off of two town Vanillas being confirmed. Behaviorally, I can't say I've seen anything too concerning. She has been more active than I've seen her before, but I'm not sussing that.
Danielle - She's null for me. Danielle is bringing a lot of good analysis to this, but my experience with her is that this isn't unusual whether she is scum or town. The main behavioral element that has me slightly tilting town with her is the question about the no lynch. I would expect her to be more aggressive as scum and push for a lynch.
Onto DP2.
Speed - I've always had a hard time reading Speed and I'm feeling that again here. Still null at the moment. We were of similar minds on the Earth lynch, so I can't fault him there, so I'm having a hard time determining whether it's just us being on the same page or buddying.
GP - There's so much I don't like about GP's behavior and claim that I've already explained. None of that has changed. I'm still scumreading him. He remains my strongest scum read.
That leaves WyIted. He hasn't been on either lynch. He keeps jumping on and off of lynching me, though he has gotten less interested in the "why" of it, instead piggybacking on what Danielle said about scum likely being between me, SirAnon, Speed and MC and just placing a vote on me... I guess because he already sussed me earlier? I wasn't clear. He's kept saying that GP should be a last resort without much in the way of justification. Earlier in the DP, he was fine voting for him until he felt that his role somehow balances with GP's (we've confirmed MC's role, so if WyIted's soft claim is true, it's not balanced), then decided to push the last resort part after we'd confirmed MC's role. His interactions with GP, as far as I can find, have just involved GP literally asking him "Are you talking to your scum buddy?" and WyIted responding with "Is this a yes or no question?" and responding to a "I still don't trust Wylted" directed to badger with "Bro, I'm white." Fluff interactions. He was also needlessly defensive early in DP2, claiming that he was an easy mislynch despite a lack of votes on him or even anyone sussing him.
So, at least right now, GP and Wylted are my strongest scum reads. As for a third, I have it mainly between Badger and Speed at the moment, leaning towards the former.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Alright, sounds good.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
How much of this is true?
Some of it is accurate. RM has gotten to know me decently well over the years I've known him, and he's clearly trying to approximate what I would say. It's not perfect, but it's closer than I expected coming in.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, I'll treat that as verified. Unvote. At this point, we're either buying that MC is essentially town confirmed or we're testing something new with him because I have a hard time believing that Mharman and Luna would include a fully lynchproof mafia in this game.
Now to read back through the previous two DPs and see what I missed.
Created: