>> ^ponceleon:

I kinda agree, I mean, there's nothing you are going to say to one of these people that is going to convince them that homosexuality is okay, but I guess I just feel like this is an escalation rather than something constructive.
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^ponceleon:
Very funny, but part of me feels it is a bit counterproductive if we are trying to convince the fear-mongered masses of this country that being homosexual doesn't automatically make you a hyper-sexualized insane person.

Why should we try and convince them of this? Plenty of straight, hyper-sexualized "insane" people. I say shake what your god gave you. Haters gonna hate, and I aint gonna try and meet them halfway.


I feel that there isn't really a way to reason with these people. Sure, you might be able to sway some minds in the middle, but I dont think there are any fencesitters in a protest against homosexuality. So maybe it is an escalation, but I don't think there is nothing to be gained from mocking them either. To argue against their position is almost to give them some sort of legitimacy. When we point and laugh we turn it into the childish farce it really is. This might not change minds, but I at least hope it gives some confidence and self worth to those that need it.

@NetRunner Honestly, I'm unimpressed. Peter Schiff may not be John Nash, but you sound like Chris Matthews. Do you get your economic wisdom from Mother Jones or HuffPo?


So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Hypothetical example (which I thought I outlined for you): Peter Schiff owns/runs a business as his primary mode of income. That business pays a 35% corporate tax rate on their profits. The remaining profits translate into capital gains, which are then taxed at 15%. While obviously the tax rates aren't perfectly additive (15% of 65% is smaller than 15% of 100%), you can still see how one could quickly approach 50% in taxes. I haven't even included any local taxes or consumption taxes. These aren't dubious statements. These are facts about the tax code which progressives should learn to wise up to. There is a valid point there about streamlining the tax code. Like you said... Meh.


The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

Making investment deals and business decisions isn't quite like arguing on the internet and playing video games. You have to meet people, negotiate, spend basically all day on the phone or in a plane. You don't have much time for your family (though I don't know if he has one). While it may not be coal mining, it's certainly work. It's at least as much work as the people typing things into excel between trips to the water cooler are doing. It's quite possible that if he were to decide to leave, or cut back his hours worked (because of government disincentive), the firm would downsize or even fail. All those workers whose paychecks depended on his profitable decision making could be out of work. Now like I said, someone else might hire back those same workers (e.g. if he sold the firm), however there is no guarantee the business will be as profitable without their greatest profit engine (Schiff himself). Like I further argued, if there were someone equally capable of running the firm as profitably, they would likely already be a competitor.


As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

Right, because the government won't let the labor market correct. They keep propping everybody up with prolonged unemployment (I've known somewhat skilled people that wouldn't take jobs because unemployment pays better), and direct government employment. It is happening within some sectors, particularly highly skilled labor. Perhaps you've heard of the skills gap in the current employment picture? For example, the university I'm at is shedding lecturers, and poaching high-valued researchers from struggling institutions. There have been plenty of proposals to bridge this skills gap in more industrial sectors as well, e.g. turning unemployment benefits into vocational training. But instead you took a left turn towards "the mean corporations won't do things that are against their interests."


It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Now you're a protectionist? Have you heard of "cost centers" and "profit centers?" Profit centers (valued labor) don't get outsourced. Cost centers (commoditized, fungible, unskilled, expensive labor) do. With regard to unions, it has often been their own inflexibility with their contracts (not that executives aren't equally guilty with bonuses) that has resulted in layoffs as opposed to shared pain (evenly spread hour reductions).


Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Thanks. I think it's important to be able to see all sides rather than just cheerlead. Also, "economics" is theory, "the market" is the most efficient system for allocating resources with respect to individual preferences known to man. We can talk about our favorite flawed microeconomic assumptions if you want, but it's a tough case that "because I said so" is going to be more efficient than voluntary exchange.


Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

(I get nauseous arguing against the Keynesian point so I won't directly). What I'll say is that it isn't clear drastically raising taxes on the rich will help either. What might help is a more efficient allocation of the government revenue we already have (like the vocational training instead of unemployment I outlined above). The other thing that I, and I think many others would like to see is an increase in the standard of living of individual business proprietors. They've been doing worse than "traditional labor" over the past few decades in case you haven't noticed.


A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

I do too! I bet everyone would go leverage themselves to the gills buying houses knowing full well that when they can't cover the debt the government will bail them out! Sure, stopgap coverage, renegotiation, all that would be great (much better than bailing out the banks directly IMO), but a full fledged free money party only exacerbates the delusion. It's a recipe for currency debasement. People need to be allowed to demonstrate and feel the consequences of their lack of creditworthiness. Also, those that were creditworthy should be appropriately rewarded. It's sort of like the OWS girl that wants rich people to pay back her 100gs in student loans, but all those people that saved for college, worked for scholarships, held a job through school, well they're probably just fine the way they are.


As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

You don't find common ground, build coalitions, or change minds with ridicule.

>> ^criticalthud:

Cops are the largest organized and armed gang in the US. They collect revenue for cities and states. They enforce laws that disproportionally target the poor and the non-white. They are rarely prosecuted and almost never convicted for crimes committed by their members, even while off duty.
The police often attract employees who enjoy violence.
I fear the police much more than I count on them to do the right thing.


Not in Rochester. In Rochester, it's the Crips. Just sayin'. I know they both wear blue and all, it can be tough to tell. I have a feeling the Rochester Crips run most of the Caine and H that the north east sees. They also routinely wear vests, and carry automatic weapons. A friend of mine witnessed a drive-by with an automatic weapon right down the street from our house, which I believe is right down the street from where the original arrest took place.

She shouldn't have been arrested, and the court dismissed it out of hand. In fact, the court didn't, the prosecutor didn't even press the charge. Our legal system has routinely defended our rights to question and record the police. That a couple of high-stress cops over-react isn't surprising, nor is it particularly threatening to our liberties. There is, however, some serious anti-cop sentiment that is threatening to everybody. I can see being uneasy as a cop, particularly in some neighborhoods of that town. Edgy cops are more likely to do something they shouldn't. Sure, the ticket thing was childish, but it's too convenient to paint this issue with a broad brush. If you were forced to watch every arrest on film, my suspicion is that you'd agree with the vast majority of them. You just only see the videos the "changing minds campaigners" want you to see.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
You know what? I'm not a libertarian. Most of the cops I've met are courteous and hard working people. A lot of the time, I disagree with Blankfists "way to go, statist idiots" stance. But I'm starting to think that maybe that's because I don't live in the U.S.
Because this is just bullshit.
I have a right to question the actions of a police officer? You're goddamn right I do!
I can handle that a cop crosses the line, but then he gets defended by officials?
Fuck. That. Shit.
In regards to this specific case, a bit of common sense needs applying. Coming up to a cop in the middle of a potentially violent arrest situation and badgering them probably isn't the smartest thing to do, but taping them from several metres away? How is that "interfering"?

You're right. My stance on statism is objectionably wrong. But it's a dissenting viewpoint that at least makes you question the status quo, no? If so, then I feel it's working.
You know, when the US Libertarian Party was started in the US, apparently they never sought to win any elections. It was about changing minds. Think about that. Pretty astounding, IMHO.


I never said it was objectionably wrong. I said I disagreed with it. Maybe I'm crazy, but in general I like having people around with opposing viewpoints*, forces you to justify your own beliefs, so cheers non-statist non-idiot!

*within reason: there is nothing to be gained from debating racists, creationists, homoeopaths and shinyblurry.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You know what? I'm not a libertarian. Most of the cops I've met are courteous and hard working people. A lot of the time, I disagree with Blankfists "way to go, statist idiots" stance. But I'm starting to think that maybe that's because I don't live in the U.S.
Because this is just bullshit.
I have a right to question the actions of a police officer? You're goddamn right I do!
I can handle that a cop crosses the line, but then he gets defended by officials?
Fuck. That. Shit.
In regards to this specific case, a bit of common sense needs applying. Coming up to a cop in the middle of a potentially violent arrest situation and badgering them probably isn't the smartest thing to do, but taping them from several metres away? How is that "interfering"?


You're right. My stance on statism is objectionably wrong. But it's a dissenting viewpoint that at least makes you question the status quo, no? If so, then I feel it's working.

You know, when the US Libertarian Party was started in the US, apparently they never sought to win any elections. It was about changing minds. Think about that. Pretty astounding, IMHO.

@Truckchase, @messenger: Those that have followed my posts on here know that I'm firmly in your camp in general. In this particular case, I think shouldn't be too hard on what is an obvious "rant," and not really an attempt at reasoned debate, or what have you. It's intended purpose seems to be the psychological benefit of atheists, not spreading reason. It's basically an atheist circle-jerk, and that's fine for what it is. I actually felt for his frustration. I've been there.

However, since I'm really interested in how we can change minds, I'm more interested in your discussion than the video itself. I think one of the traps we fall into is assuming that they're attitude is consistently coming from a fear of damnation. I agree it exists, but more often I find this equally "superior" attitude coming from them. They seem to act more saddened that I would choose to miss out on this great joy, than fearful of the punishment their god would doll out. The loudmouths are a completely different story. I'm talking more about the common, quiet, friendly, generous, and quite often otherwise reasonable religious folk I usually encounter. While our study bibles might be heavier than their pamphlets, they don't usually come across as utterly incompetent, fearful individuals. More frequently they've just been sold on the happy angle.

It's easy to turn someone against a tyrant. The perceived benevolent ruler is harder to overthrow. Personally, I find the best way to turn someone on the Christian God, is to make them actually read Leviticus. I find most of them haven't.

@messenger, @Sketch

I don't disagree with your sentiment at all; I find it quite frustrating at times as well, but I stand by my assertion that it won't help to be confrontational. I expect this shift will literally take generations to come about. Arguing with individuals in an effort to "convert" (perhaps de-convert) them rarely works, regardless of how sound your reasoning is.(as you have both noted) Everyone wants to win. Everyone wants to make up their own mind. For a lot of adults, it's quite simply too late to make such a radical change in their concept of existence. The young aren't as rigid, however, and this belief structure can diluted from one generation to the next. I assert the most effective way to change minds over time is to change our culture, and we're well on our way. The beacon of truth shines brightly on its own, while lies take significant maintenance. The more (effectively) open our society becomes the more difficult it will be to spread the influence of obvious lies. This will require work on our part, however, to call out specific, organized and systemic deception efforts over the course of our lives. We've got a long road ahead of us, but it should be interesting if nothing else.

That ad campaign is interesting; that's the sort of effort that we can aspire to in our daily lives. Not confrontational, but when the situation arises, let others know they're not alone with their doubts. Movements need leaders, and we're all capable of that role if we can be disciplined and patient enough.

I don't normally do quotes because it's easy to take someone out of context for your own purposes, but I especially like this one as I interpret it to pertain to this situation:

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." -Sun Tzu

Edit: Example of more constructive, (in terms of construction and delivery) yet just as scathing (in terms of content) criticism. Starts @ 8:07... man I envy the Hitchslap ability...

Wish he'd spent more time explaining how plate tectonics is a superior fit for the evidence and less time mocking them for being able to explain where the new mass is coming from. I always find superior-fit-to-evidence to be more compelling than look-how-stupid-they-are as arguments go. The former changes minds, the latter often just pisses people off and makes them stop listening.

But still nice to have this to point people to.

You never answered my question. You've given me doctrinal bull, a list of fallacies, medieval times among other monkey dances, but you've yet to explicitly spell out a believable scenario in which the free market brings down a merchant monarch. This is now the 6th time I've asked and I've also given you two examples.

Can you do it or not? Can you give me a plausible scenario that I can't easily take apart in seconds.

You are asking people to accept a fairly radical, untested, political doctrine. If you want to change minds, you need to earn it, and to me, you could earn this by giving me a scenario in which freemarketology brings down a corporate dictator.

I'll set the stage: Ron Paul is elected as world dictator tomorrow, a minarchy is put into place, corporate welfare comes to an end, but so does labor protections, environmental protections, regulation and oversight. Hundreds of super-powerful corporations start making plays in the newly created power vacuum. The bigger ones eat the smaller ones, there are mergers, corporate mercinary armies are built up. The skies grow dark and it seems that all is lost until........

Win my heart and mind.

Fair enough

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
We are victims in the technical sense, and I do feel aggrieved. What actually happened to Turing is his personal tragedy, the crime was the law of the day, and affects even us since we could just as easily be living in 60s Britain as 00s wherever. While there are strategies he could have adopted for a safer and more comfortable life, there's nothing Turing could have done to avoid being victimised, and all the changed minds and apologies in the world aren't going to help him.

When Henry VIII officially criminalised buggery in 15-urmmurmurmurmur, and his law was supported by subsequent generations, they weren't just thinking of their people in their own time, they applied it to everyone - you, me, Alan Turing and a child born a billion years from now in Alpha Centauri. This is the problem with taking the long view; the future may be bright, but it can't shine back on us, while the shadow of the past stretches forward forever.

Meh. I'm still closer to childhood than middle-age, and enamoured of idealism.

As for our limited intelligence - you do the best you can with what you have, and I'd suggest we're doing a hell of a lot better than some.

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Yeah, the 'personhood' model and the cognitive machine model are each useful levels of detail for the same thing... the best one to use probably depends on what your application is.

I don't blame people, though, for holding views that I think have big costs for society... I think we're all in the same trap of limited human intelligence - them more so than us - and people will change their minds in the end.

Also, the libertarian in me says that society's lack of intelligence only has a cost on us if we let it (to some degree). Turing, for example, as much as I personally admire him for his genius, chose to take certain risks, and he lost the bet.

...

We are victims in the technical sense, and I do feel aggrieved. What actually happened to Turing is his personal tragedy, the crime was the law of the day, and affects even us since we could just as easily be living in 60s Britain as 00s wherever. While there are strategies he could have adopted for a safer and more comfortable life, there's nothing Turing could have done to avoid being victimised, and all the changed minds and apologies in the world aren't going to help him.

When Henry VIII officially criminalised buggery in 15-urmmurmurmurmur, and his law was supported by subsequent generations, they weren't just thinking of their people in their own time, they applied it to everyone - you, me, Alan Turing and a child born a billion years from now in Alpha Centauri. This is the problem with taking the long view; the future may be bright, but it can't shine back on us, while the shadow of the past stretches forward forever.

Meh. I'm still closer to childhood than middle-age, and enamoured of idealism.

As for our limited intelligence - you do the best you can with what you have, and I'd suggest we're doing a hell of a lot better than some.

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Yeah, the 'personhood' model and the cognitive machine model are each useful levels of detail for the same thing... the best one to use probably depends on what your application is.

I don't blame people, though, for holding views that I think have big costs for society... I think we're all in the same trap of limited human intelligence - them more so than us - and people will change their minds in the end.

Also, the libertarian in me says that society's lack of intelligence only has a cost on us if we let it (to some degree). Turing, for example, as much as I personally admire him for his genius, chose to take certain risks, and he lost the bet.

...

Willy Nelson said it best (and im probably gonna misquote)
"stress is the number 1 killer... and the number 1 stress reliever, is cannabis."

I think everyone on here could use a lil puff puff pass to get over this whole "im gonna prove to you im right with large posts and vague examples supporting my claim" thing. Everyone, breath deep... and hold.. exhale. Its all going to be okay. Nobodies gonna change minds over a sift post so lets all move along and watch a lol cats video or something.

we're cool....
((( CHANGE MIND )))
pull back!
pull back!

First things first. If anyone has ever seen me post they know I'm one of the first to speak about taser abuse, racial imbalance in the prison system, or other problems of the sort. I'm hardly an apologist for anyone, especially for authority. But the "how can one expect a military man to understand humanity" thing was out of line.

The most gentle and childlike man in terms of wanting to play rather than fight I've ever met in my life was a former green beret who fought in Nam, 68-69. He like many others didn't join to kill people, he joined to play baseball on special teams and when that was cut to expand the war in Nam they asked him to try out for the other. Most who join think they are doing the right thing, at least when they start. Although most have had the chance to rotate out by now we started this war with kids who joined to get money for college or to get out of dead end towns, not with killers. Almost anyone put into an ugly situation can find themselves doing things they never would have dreamed of on their own, be it on the streets, prison, or in war. I did, streets and lockup. Blame the war and the leaders, or the drug war, or whatever applies in that particular case.

Some of those same people come out to form groups such as Veterans Against The War, or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Convert them if they aren't already with us, don't condemn them.

As far as the vid, personally I think it's in poor taste and doesn't have anythiing to do with nature but I've never down voted anything yet and I'm not going to start with this one. I'm as surprised by some of the reaction to it as I am about the vid itself. Not that people didn't like it, but at how fast the discussion got personal. We're normally better than this. WTF? You don't change minds or get a point of view across by getting combative, you do it by explaining.

Hmmmmmm..... who to believe. Science or Choggie?

Sorry Choggie.

2+2=5 is not the kind of dissent you should be proud of. 'Dissent' in science requires peer review, not just political rhetoric. Get off your soapbox and put on a lab coat if you want to change minds.