[Davin]

Victus wrote

I think I can swap out words with the same meaning, yes.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/demand

Main Entry: demand
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: question, request
Synonyms: appeal, application, arrogation, bid, bidding, call, call for, charge, claim, clamor, command, counterclaim, entreatment, entreaty, exaction, impetration, imploration, importunity, imposition, inquiry, insistence, interest, interrogation, lien, necessity, need, occasion, order, petition, plea, prayer, pursuit, requirement, requisition, rush, sale, search, solicitation, stipulation, suit, supplication, trade, ultimatum, use, vogue, want

Ok, let's choose a synonym... sale. So I saled you to answer a question.

Or...

http://thesaurus.com/browse/sale

Main Entry: sale
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: exchange of object for money
Synonyms: auction, barter, business, buying, clearance, closeout, commerce, consuming, deal, demand, disposal, dumping, enterprise, marketing, negotiation, purchase, purchasing, reduction, selling, trade, transaction, unloading, vending, vendition

Let's choose another word with the same meaning... unloading. I unloaded you to answer the question.

Or...

http://thesaurus.com/browse/unloaded

I unburdened you to answer the question.

Or...

http://thesaurus.com/browse/unburden

I wiped you to answer the question.

This was a simple demonstration on how stupid you are for thinking that synonyms can be swapped without regard to context. If you use this reasoning to say that I demanded you to answer the question, then you must also accept the same reasoning to mean that I wiped you to answer the question. After all, they're all synonyms.

Victus wrote

Arguing in favor of libertarianism amongst friends.

Who stated these methods? Probably just another example of your inferior reading skills.

Victus wrote

I'll help you...

There you go. Libertarian policies seek to maximize individual rights and minimize the role of the state.

Do you understand that a policy cannot seek to do anything? Are you now also confused with the difference between a person and a policy?

Victus wrote

There's the fact that you're holding others to a higher standards. But if you don't care about being a hypocrite, then I guess the answer is no.

Who am I holding to higher standards?

Victus wrote

The empirical evidence is there. Anyone can follow the links to check it out for themselves. At this point, you're just being unskillfully dishonest.

Pedantic maybe, but not dishonest. It would be far more dishonest for someone to link to an article and claim it to be empirical evidence than for a person to correctly show that an article is not empirical evidence.

Victus wrote

My claim was that voters are irrational. I linked to a series of papers showing that voters are irrational (by, for instance, holding politicians accountable for the weather). The link seems pretty obvious.

Then it should be easy for you to explain the links.

Victus wrote

Let's see...

Originally, you asked for evidence of libertarianism, so I linked to some sites that aggregated it for public consumption (I don't know what your level of education is, so I try to keep things pretty simple for you unless otherwise indicated). You denied that there was any empirical evidence to be had at said sites, so I linked directly to an article on the minimum wage (as an example topic), which had about two pages worth of references, and a dozen or so peer-reviewed studies marked for 'further reading'. Then I linked to some papers on the topic of voter irrationality, immediately after you said I hadn't provided evidence of voter irrationality.

You seem to be having trouble following along with the lesson. Did you want to take a nap? Maybe go poop poop?

That whole recounting of the events is not close to what actually happened. That may be how it happened in your head, but the history of the posts clearly shows that that is not how it happened.

Victus wrote

As noted above, I've pretty clearly explained the context in which I was generating the links. The connection with the topic at hand is obvious. I get that you're having trouble with this whole 'using evidence to construct a coherent argument' thing, though.

No, I'm having no trouble with it, but apparently you have no idea how the "evidence" you're citing relates in any way to what you're talking about as evidenced by you not being able to cite to anything inside the papers, just the papers.


Just the first paper: http://myweb.lmu.edu/ahealy/papers/c...stribution.pdf

We note several caveats with these regressions. First, as mentioned, we observe relief spending only at the constituency level. Second, because we are unable to identify plausibly exogenous variation in government spending that is uncorrelated with rainfall, it is possible that the regression suffers from omitted variables bias: if more competent governments administer aid more effectively and also deliver more of it, we are unable to determine what fraction of the electoral boost from aid administration is due to general competence as opposed to aid delivery.

Shows that there are crucial variables that they just don't have available to produce very accurate statistics on something very important to rational voting: did the guy do a good job handling the crisis?

Our finding that voters are more likely to reelect an incumbent who has responded well to an emergency may result from our measure of government responsiveness (rainfall shock interacted with relief spending) being correlated with the general competence level of the state government.

So by the admission of the people that made the study, there are very valid factors that would show the voters to be rationally voting. So you provided a study that disproves your "voters are irrational" statement. Good work!

Victus wrote

Right here...

I know you're pretty stupid and have difficulty reading, but that just shows that I've made no claims anywhere close to:

Victus wrote

You're claiming that conformity underlies non-libertarian political affiliation.

Because I did not claim what you're claiming I claimed. Once again you've shown your incompetence in understanding basic statements.

Victus wrote

As I said earlier, either disrupting conformity is your motivation for arguing libertarianism or your mentioning of Asch is non-nonsensical in this context. Either way, your arguments falls apart.

Yes they were, but you haven't shown that non-libertarian political affiliation is primarily maintained via conformity (which is what you need to do for Asch's research to be relevant to this discussion).

I never made either of those claims. Why would I need to support claims that I've never claimed and would not claim?

Victus wrote

I haven't heard any logical or evidence-based counter-points come from you yet.

That might be because your reading level is so low.

Victus wrote

No, only that you do.

You said you were just thinking the same thing in response to me saying you have a mindset like a theist. Another example among many that you have problems understanding basic sentences? I think so.

Victus wrote

About multiple persons (and hence, multiple anecdotes).

So if someone says, "I have ten dollars" then they're making ten statements for the price of one? You are an idiot.

Victus wrote

Because it relies on unreliable evidence.

So does choosing to wear socks, but I still wear socks.

Victus wrote

We don't accept personal anecdotes from the other theists that troll through here, so what makes you so special?

I wouldn't accept anecdotal evidence from someone telling me I'm wrong or trying to convince me to accept something. I'm not telling you you're wrong citing my anecdotal evidence nor am I trying to convince you to do the same thing I am because of my anecdotal evidence.

Victus wrote

Any of them, since each definition includes the word 'deny', which is affirmative in nature (e.g., "I deny that God exists"). Thanks for doing the research to prove my point further, though.

Each definition also includes the word "or". So you also have problems with the word "or" do you? You are proving to be more mentally challenged with every new post.

Victus wrote

But more to the point, do you deny that strong atheism is part of atheism?. And if you do, why do you assume that weak atheism should be mantle-place definition of the entire school of though?

Saying that atheism is the belief that there is no god or gods excludes those that merely lack the belief in a god or gods. Saying that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god or gods doesn't exclude those that believe there is no god or gods. So saying that "atheism" means "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god or gods), means that there cannot be any "weak atheism" (the lack of a belief in a god or gods). I can try to dumb it down even more if this is too complicated for you.

Victus wrote

If it were a blanket statement that I couldn't back up, then it would be easy for you to pick a topic (any topic) and make me look really stupid. I wonder why you haven't yet.

I'd much rather discuss what you actually support than to bring something up that I don't even know you support.