War Room OT Discussion v5

[Trotsky]

Don't be a , pussy.

Spoiler

I'm sure you're joking, but fyi, it's a term that my wife identifies with acceptance. At least for her non-haole ass anyways.

Hawaiian women are in my experience some of the most beautiful in the world, so congratulations on that.

Hawaiian men, I could take or leave.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Hawaiian women are in my experience some of the most beautiful in the world, so congratulations on that.

Hawaiian men, I could take or leave.

My bitch ball & chain better half is just as imported as me. Difference is that mixed up brown skin confused lack of racial purity shit. I'm practically Martin Mull. But love is love.

 

[Trotsky]

My bitch ball & chain better half is just as imported as me. Difference is that mixed up brown skin confused lack of racial purity shit. I'm practically Martin Mull. But love is love.

You've lost me on who is what, but congrats on the love.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You've lost me on who is what, but congrats on the love.

I'm the haole. She's the hapa.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Thanks. Next time I repeat the 90% figure it I'll add the 5 month part.

That seems like an odd approach, too. I see this whole thing as the equivalent of this:

News: Jose' Altuve hit .103 during a two-week stretch in May.
Cubo: Why is Altuve getting the MVP? Dude was a .103 hitter.
JVS: To be fair, Altuve actually hit .346.
@Kafir-kun: Judge had a higher WAR and I think he should be the MVP.
JVS: That's OK, but let's be clear that he's not a .103 hitter.
Cubo (pouty): I think Kluber should have gotten it. Pitchers don't get a fair shake.
JVS: Again, fine, but let's just get the facts right.
Cubo: OK, next time I call Altuve a .103 hitter, I'll be sure to reference that he hit .103 during one two-week stretch in May.

Why not just represent the facts accurately? Especially if your prior false belief that drones are ridiculously inaccurate is not the actual basis of your opposition to them.

What's to adjust? You must not grasp my position at all if you think that would change it. Sure, 20% is far less egregious. If it all meets your standard of ethics then that's on you. Are we all done here now?

Where our standards of ethics differ is on truth-telling rather than drones. My only contribution to the discussion on drones was to clear up a factual error.

 

[Gregolian]

@Jack V Savage

I hope that fucking midget Altuve gets hit by a goddamn bus as long as he's an Astro.

 

[Quipling]

Am I the only one excited for this card?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Am I the only one excited for this card?

The only one I know of.

The main event is a great fight for hardcores, but not a real *event* fight, and the rest of the card is meh IMO.

 

[Fawlty]

Rockhold Romero is cool. I only recognize like half the names on the card though.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That seems like an odd approach, too. I see this whole thing as the equivalent of this:

News: Jose' Altuve hit .103 during a two-week stretch in May.
Cubo: Why is Altuve getting the MVP? Dude was a .103 hitter.
JVS: To be fair, Altuve actually hit .346.
@Kafir-kun: Judge had a higher WAR and I think he should be the MVP.
JVS: That's OK, but let's be clear that he's not a .103 hitter.
Cubo (pouty): I think Kluber should have gotten it. Pitchers don't get a fair shake.
JVS: Again, fine, but let's just get the facts right.
Cubo: OK, next time I call Altuve a .103 hitter, I'll be sure to reference that he hit .103 during one two-week stretch in May.

Why not just represent the facts accurately? Especially if your prior false belief that drones are ridiculously inaccurate is not the actual basis of your opposition to them.

I know nothing about baseball so I have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I know nothing about baseball so I have no idea what you're talking about here.

You should learn.

But really, it's just a stats and honesty thing. Batting average (not really an important stat these days given that we have far better ways to measure offensive contribution) is the frequency of official at-bats in which you get a hit (so .103 = 10.3%, which is really bad; and .346= 34.6%, which is a number that would typically be the best in the league). Over the course of a 162-game season, even the best players will have poor stretches, and it's highly misleading to just pick one anomalous period with no special significance and use it to represent the whole. And it's odd to take that approach if it isn't even your point.

Cubo dishonestly claimed that drones are ridiculously inaccurate, but then when that error was pointed out, he just moved on to opposing them for other reasons (and insisting that I support them simply because I pointed out the inaccuracy). That's reflective of a general failing I see a lot here. People think only in terms of "is X good or bad" and the arguments they then make regarding X are completely irrelevant, and if the factual basis of those arguments are shown to be false, they just cheerily move on to making different arguments or angrily lash out at the corrector, while those of us who believe in honesty are just dumbfounded.

 

[Trotsky]

That seems like an odd approach, too. I see this whole thing as the equivalent of this:

News: Aaron Rodgers compiled a 56.0 passer rating during a two-week stretch in September
Cubo: Why is Rodgers getting the MVP? Dude was a 56.0 passer rating quarterback
JVS: To be fair, Rodgers' season passer rating was 103.4
@Kafir-kun: Tom Brady is a bitch and gets carried by his GOAT coach!
JVS: That's OK, but let's be clear that he's not a 56.0 passer rating quarterback
Cubo (pouty): I think Hekker should have gotten it. Punters don't get a fair shake.
JVS: Again, fine, but let's just get the facts right.
Cubo: OK, next time I call Rodgers a 56.0 passer rating quarterback, I'll be sure to reference that he compiled a 56.0 rating during two weeks in September

FIXED.

If you're going to analyze politics to sports, I must insist that you don't use a sport that is ludicrously boring and awful.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Where our standards of ethics differ is on truth-telling rather than drones.

Not really. I didn't remember that detail from reading about it at the time so it wasn't included. It's like you don't understand the difference between misrepresenting and mis-remembering. Or you're just intent on trying to misrepresent my intentions. Either way, don't care. The concept is now in front of you so do what you will with it.

And if you have some ethical issue with how drones have been employed that's anywhere near mine then feel free to share. Otherwise, have a great weekend.

 

[Jack V Savage]

FIXED.

If you're going to analyze politics to sports, I must insist that you don't use a sport that is ludicrously boring and awful.

That works, but baseball is way more fun than football. I've been suckered into watching football because I was waiting for something else to come on after the game and saw that there's only 4 minutes on the clock. "Oh, OK, cool. Almost over." Then 45 minutes later, with 3:57 on the clock: "Holy shit, do people actually watch this for fun?"

And if you have some ethical issue with how drones have been employed that's anywhere near mine then feel free to share. Otherwise, have a great weekend.

I don't know enough to comment, really. What are the alternatives? I wouldn't say that all drone usage is bad, but I wouldn't deny that some drone usage is bad. Depends on the specific case. However, if they hit nine innocent people for every target, I would say that they were bad in almost all cases (even where action of some kind would be the least-bad option, there would have to be a better way). So I think the error (again, made more than once, which along with your reaction is why I think there was bad intent rather than a simple mistake) is *highly* material to the conclusion.

 

[Trotsky]

That works, but baseball is way more fun than football. I've been suckered into watching football because I was waiting for something else to come on after the game and saw that there's only 4 minutes on the clock. "Oh, OK, cool. Almost over." Then 45 minutes later, with 3:57 on the clock: "Holy shit, do people actually watch this for fun?"

You're a bad person.

Football is more highly position-specialized, has more diverse and interesting analytics due to position specialization, has more interesting systems for evaluating talent, is faster-paced, and isn't filled with awkward shots of dudes fondling their junk.

1. American football
2. Basketbal
3. MMA
4. Boxing
5. Futbol
6. Hockey
.
.
.
12. Track and Field
13. Tennis
14. Volleyball
.
.
.
22. Curling
23. Bowling
24. Arm wrestling
.
.
.
58. Professional Poker
59. NASCAR
60. Psychic Spoon bending
.
.
.
.
96. Golf
97. Baseball

 

[Jack V Savage]

OK, agree to disagree, except I do agree that football is more specialized, though I see that as a bad thing.

 

[Gregolian]

I played baseball and basketball as a kid and into middle school.

They both can go suck off a fucking AIDs infected donkey while getting fondled by Weinstein for all I care.

 

[Gregolian]

Both sports at a pro level can do that. NBA most of all.

Baseball gets fun for me around late August when the playoff races start. Prior to All Star Break I don't give a shit but that could be because the Mariners will look like killers then June/July hit and they drop 20 out of 25 games in a row.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't know enough to comment, really. What are the alternatives? I wouldn't say that all drone usage is bad, but I wouldn't deny that some drone usage is bad. Depends on the specific case. However, if they hit nine innocent people for every target, I would say that they were bad in almost all cases (even where action of some kind would be the least-bad option, there would have to be a better way).

Well gee, our ethical standards on the matter are practically identical then. Or not. But it almost sounds like you're taking enough of a stand to say that a 90% rate of collateral damage over a five month sample size is troubling. So there's that. What % is your tipping point? 10%? 35%? How about if it were 0% but you think execution without trial is unethical?

One alternative is to not target people for murder in foreign lands. Let the local authorities deal with their criminals and if they don't we shut down travel and trade with those nations.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well gee, our ethical standards on the matter are practically identical then.

I thought I spelled out clearly that the differing ethical standards concerned accuracy rather than drones.

Or not. But it almost sounds like you're taking enough of a stand to say that a 90% rate of collateral damage over a five month sample size is troubling. So there's that. What % is your tipping point? 10%? 35%? How about if it were 0% but you think execution without trial is unethical?

Of course it's troubling. A bus explosion is troubling, and in the day that one happens, a percentage of bus passengers who are killed that would be totally unacceptable if it were normal can happen. Do you understand that point? "Five percent of bus passengers in this district are killed in an explosion every day" = "buses are unacceptably risky." "Five percent of bus passengers were killed in an explosion last Thursday" /= "buses are unacceptably risky." And making that distinction does not imply a difference of opinion on buses.