Kids with MAGA hats and Native Americans involved in... something

[Boyle5150]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Now Bill Clinton turned into a woman.

 

It's irrelevant how Bill Clinton used it in the 90s. He's not running around in a MAGA hat now.

 

Which is why I'm asking: what's their vision? You keep deflecting into the 80s and 90s now that someone else brought it up lol.

You know what I meant. 

 

Read massdivers post. You are wrong period. 

 

I expect an apology for calling me a dumb dumb stupid head. 

 

Also, did you read what I posted. That’s not a deflection it’s another example 

[Boyle5150]

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

But the number of Boyle-related conditional variables just to make sane expectations of butt stuff and penis size is already making a mess of things!

I would say it’s an AVERAGE amount. 

[SaysWho?]

Just now, Boyle5150 said:

You know what I meant. 

 

Read massdivers post. You are wrong period. 

 

I expect an apology for calling me a dumb dumb stupid head. 

 

I know you get a boner when someone comes and agrees with any part of your posts and you go on the upvote spree, but he's wrong. 

 

I don't know what you mean: what's their vision? You keep dodging the question and hoping to deflect into, "But Bill."

[legend]

Just now, Boyle5150 said:

I would say it’s an AVERAGE amount. 

 

Yeah, contradictory data like this is exactly what I'm talking about!

 

 

 

 

[Nokra]

Summary of this argument:

 

 

 

 

ARE YOU THREATENING ME!?!?!

 

 

 

 

 

[Boyle5150]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I know you get a boner when someone comes and agrees with any part of your posts and you go on the upvote spree, but he's wrong. 

 

I don't know what you mean: what's their vision? You keep dodging the question and hoping to deflect into, "But Bill."

When did I say “But Bill”.  

I don’t think your thinking things through.  

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, Boyle5150 said:

When did I say “But Bill”.  

I don’t think your thinking things through.  

 

This is another one of those dishonest posts that also didn't answer the questions.

[Boyle5150]

Take a break, go get a coffee, and refresh the kink in your think.  

[Spork3245]

30 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Boyle is right that MAGA means different things to different people. It meant different things to presidents Trump, Clinton, and Reagan, who all uses the phrase during their campaigns. I think it’s a pretty weak argument to limit the notion of making America great again to recapturing all things from some snapshot in the nation’s history.

 

Sure, but I'd argue wearing the MAGA branding on Trump clothing/hats kinda has a consistent meaning vs when other presidents said it many years/decades ago or even the generality and vagueness of the given phrase.

[Greatoneshere]

20 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Eh, not really, because hardly any atheists are going to claim they know 100% no god exists. Like I said, it's a really pedantic argument in my followup post.

 

You can call yourself a apatheist or whatever, but you're basically an atheist. Either you believe in a god or you don't. Apatheists can pretty much be thrown under the atheist umbrella. 

 

Except the Wikipedia page for atheism flatly states that atheism is "specifically the position that there are no deities". The dictionary definition of the term atheism  is: "1) the doctrine or belief that there is no God; or 2) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". I'm not trying to make an argument of this, just explaining my thinking/reasoning, where I'm coming from. In each of these instances, definitive terms like "no deities" and "no God" and "disbelief" indicate there is a sense of definitiveness - a belief that God does not exist. Not that he sorta/kinda might not exist, but that you belief God does not exist.

 

That does not mean one can't have doubts, even as an atheist (it's quite normal), but there is a clear distinction in believing in agnosticism, which clearly states: "I cannot say there is no God" as a belief system. Atheism isn't just a logical proposition, but a belief system, like any religion. Again, these terms are fluid (so I'm not trying to be too strict here) and atheism and agnosticism both have sliding scales in terms of belief and believers, but there is a clear distinction between atheists and agnostics and I think its important for atheists who say they are atheist to understand that that means you are making a clear statement of belief that God does not exist (as opposed to does exist). Otherwise, you are an agnostic, or non-religious, or irreligious, or something else, in terms of labels. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism

 

20 hours ago, Boyle5150 said:

I'll respond to this later... I don't have the time atm but don't want to forget.   There are a lot of holes in this argument that I want to address, but don't want you to misunderstand me.  So please excuse my delayed reply. 

 

No problem - I am still waiting though and you have responded plenty of times since in this thread.

 

20 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, as opposed to theism which is the belief in god. There is no quantification of how much you believe or don’t

 

I don’t think it is “flatly true”. It was a class trip, something fun to do with friends. Teens have been taking class trips to events they don’t care about for as long as teens have been in organized education systems. I am sure some of those kids have strong political beliefs, including ones that align with Trump...but I would bet decent money that a lot of the kids got those MAGA hats because they thought it would be funny. Most of the kids were participating in the obnoxiousness like the school chants, but the vast majority weren’t MAGA hat wearers. 

 

See my answer in this post to Cnut. I do believe there are qualifications with regard to a disbelief in God as an atheist. 

 

Whether what they did was racist or ignorant (or both), @CitizenVectron is right to make assumptions based off of the context of the situation. Wearing a MAGA hat at an anti-abortion event means you're probably an asshole/terrible person, given the political speech (MAGA hat, anti-abortion rally) the person is doing. That's why I think it's flatly true. Ignorance can make you a terrible person, you don't have to actively be racist to be an asshole. Explaining why a person is ignorant (lack of education, poor, bad parenting, whatever) doesn't excuse the behaviour, it merely explains it. And if you are wearing a MAGA hat at an anti-abortion rally and you aren't doing it ironically but earnestly, you're probably a terrible person, I think that's a fair assumption to make, and that's why I think it is flatly true that making that assumption is perfectly reasonable. Do you dispute that?

 

20 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

That's what I've been saying!  

 

I don't believe in the invisible pink bunny floating over my head, either, but no one can say with 100% certainty he doesn't exist.  

 

Believe isn't about certainty, but conviction. Atheists have the conviction that they believe with enough certainty to confidently say: "I do not believe there is a God" with the same kind of certainty afforded a theist who says confidently: "I do believe in a god". They are all belief systems, atheism included, and thus requires certain principles, convictions, and beliefs to ascribe to said philosophical system. Again, not trying to be too strict here by giving percentages in terms of certainty, as belief is more amorphous and vague than that, but conviction in one's beliefs is certainly a requirement for any belief system. 

 

19 hours ago, legend said:

Would it surprise you to learn that perhaps the current two most well know people for being "atheists," Harris and Dawkins, do not claim certainty that God does not exist?

 

These terms are indeed very fluid and a great many people do not define them in ways that are mutually exclusive. That goes for within philosophy and outside it. 

 

I completely agree with you - see my response to Cnut in this same post to see what I'm driving at - and please follow up of course.

 

18 hours ago, Massdriver said:

1) Yes it says a lot, but it doesn't say anything about everyone with certainty. There could easily be kids there that have the attire on due to peer pressure, but I would bet it's a small minority of them. Also, what precisely do you think you can infer from the attire? Tell me what these kids believe aside from being anti abortion (nearly half the country) and being for a wall (which has now evolved into "barriers" and slats)? How certain are you with these extra claims you are adding?

 

2) I don't see how this is obvious at all. Are we seriously going to claim that someone wearing traditional Muslim attire tells us nothing about that person? Obviously there is room for uncertainty, but this seem like a bold assertion.

 

3) What assumptions do you think you can make about the person in premise 1 aside from the wall and being anti abortion? Could you not infer traditional Muslim attire increases the probability of certain beliefs vs another group without any attire on? Hmm

 

1. I'm not talking about certainty, I'm talking about the balance of probabilities. Wearing the MAGA hat means that it is likely the case that the person endorses Trump and his policies (which go far beyond just a wall policy, let's not be reductive with regard to the MAGA hat as a symbol). I feel fairly certain of my claims given the balance of probabilities. Wearing a MAGA hat to me is the equivalent of a Klan hood or Nazi tattoo. 

 

2. How is it bold? I was born, grew up, and raised Muslim. All wearing Muslim attire tells you is that they are religiously Muslim. What exactly else do you think it says about another person with any degree of certainty beyond that they are religiously Muslim?

 

2. Yes, I do not think the probability of certain beliefs that would call for external derision from others can be inferred from traditional Muslim attire being worn. Correct. Because wearing Muslim attire isn't per se political speech but a Klan hood, Nazi tatto, or MAGA hat absolutely is. 

 

2 hours ago, Boyle5150 said:

Where am I being dishonest?  My point from the beginning has been that you can’t just label someone wearing a MAGA hat as a racist.  

 

No one is limiting what wearing a MAGA hat means to just making that mean you're racist. It implies a number of potential different possibilities, all bad, whether that be racism, sexism, or something else. The hat indicates blatant ignorance, and that's enough to judge such a person on. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Yes, because Clinton's not wearing a MAGA hat. However, Pat Buchanan's Make America First Again was built on the same thing MAGA is.

 

MAGA hats and the power that phrase has right now? Completely different, and what Reagan/Clinton did is irrelevant to what I'm saying and already known to me. This isn't something I just thought of.

 

It isn’t irrelevant in the slightest. Your premise is that MAGA has a very specific meaning such that any person using it, such as wearing the campaign hat, is saying the same thing. It’s a phrase that has been used for at least 40 years in politics in this country, by people are various political leanings. Even tossing out the specific phrase, the notion of returning to some norms, customs, values, etc. of the past is incredibly common place. It’s why nostalgia peddlers due such big business. There is a natural inclination to view the past as better than today because we are presently experiencing whatever trials and grief of the day.

 

MAGA and similar phrases work precisely because they mean whatever the hearer wants them to mean.

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

Take a break, go get a coffee, and refresh the kink in your think.  

 

I've been pretty much running circles around you the entire thread.

[Massdriver]

This thread is ridiculous and fun. 

[Boyle5150]

@Greatoneshere

very sorry I completely forgot.  Let me reread it and I’ll reply. 

[Boyle5150]

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I've been pretty much running circles around you the entire thread.

Run Forrest run

 

 

you funny 

[SaysWho?]

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

It isn’t irrelevant in the slightest. Your premise is that MAGA has a very specific meaning such that any person using it, such as wearing the campaign hat, is saying the same thing. It’s a phrase that has been used for at least 40 years in politics in this country, by people are various political leanings. Even tossing out the specific phrase, the notion of returning to some norms, customs, values, etc. of the past is incredibly common place. It’s why nostalgia peddlers due such big business. There is a natural inclination to view the past as better than today because we are presently experiencing whatever trials and grief of the day.

 

MAGA and similar phrases work precisely because they mean whatever the hearer wants them to mean.

 

That would make sense.... if it weren't Trump.

 

Trump had a very specific platform: build a wall, get out of international trade agreements, limit immigration, ban Muslims. Along the way, he brought people like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. He's not being vague; he had a much more established platform.

 

So yes, what others did in the past isn't relevant in the slightest to MAGA. Wearing it means you're probably either a racist or ignorant to what it means, similar to people who weirdly believe southern heritage shit, and are likely one of those guys who thought "boTh SiDeS" was a logical conclusion from Charlottesville or require an electron microscope to view the narrow band of phrases/actions that can be defined as racist.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, Boyle5150 said:

Run Forrest run

 

That's actually a fair comparison.

[Firewithin]

4 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

This thread is ridiculous and fun. 

[skillzdadirecta]

6 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

This thread is ridiculous and fun. 

Ftfy

[Boyle5150]

24 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Is this a summary of the positions?

Position 1: Not everyone that wears a MAGA hat is a racist, but some of them are. It depends.

Position 2: Everyone that wears a MAGA hat is a racist

 

If this is what we are arguing about, I have to say that position 2 seems to be the tougher one to support and substantiate. It is a claim that requires more evidence.

 

This post is 100% correct.  

[Anathema-]

19 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Is this a summary of the positions?

Position 1: Not everyone that wears a MAGA hat is a racist, but some of them are. It depends.

Position 2: Everyone that wears a MAGA hat is a racist

 

If this is what we are arguing about, I have to say that position 2 seems to be the tougher one to support and substantiate. It is a claim that requires more evidence.

 

 

At this point anyone wearing a MAGA hat can never be given the benefit of the doubt. I don't have to prove they're racist, they have to prove they aren't. I will assume they are until proven otherwise and it's a completely fair assumption. 

 

This is like saying a ghost costume kind of looks like a klan hood so I have to prove that some racist choad isn't dressing up for Halloween in May. 

 

By this point in time a MAGA hat is a sign of white supremacist aggression. Nobody is confused as to what it means and if they truly are, I'm sorry, but the onus is on them to prove it. The fact that I could imagine that such a person exists doesn't impel me to pretend that it's common when it's not. 

[SaysWho?]

Just now, Boyle5150 said:

This post is 100% correct.  

 

Except it's not because it gets the other argument wrong. Have you been paying attention or are you just looking for more random questions to ask?

[Boyle5150]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

Except it's not because it gets the other argument wrong. Have you been paying attention or are you just looking for more random questions to ask?

That is the argument. Go get a fucking coffee. 

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

That is the argument. Go get a fucking coffee. 

 

If you think it is, then you've paid literally no attention to what anybody has said for the past several Pages. That's why you need to fixate less on the leading questions, the bad faith debating and actually read listen and think. It helps a lot in life in general.

[legend]

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Except the Wikipedia page for atheism flatly states that atheism is "specifically the position that there are no deities". The dictionary definition of the term atheism  is: "1) the doctrine or belief that there is no God; or 2) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". I'm not trying to make an argument of this, just explaining my thinking/reasoning, where I'm coming from. In each of these instances, definitive terms like "no deities" and "no God" and "disbelief" indicate there is a sense of definitiveness - a belief that God does not exist. Not that he sorta/kinda might not exist, but that you belief God does not exist.

 

That does not mean one can't have doubts, even as an atheist (it's quite normal), but there is a clear distinction in believing in agnosticism, which clearly states: "I cannot say there is no God" as a belief system. Atheism isn't just a logical proposition, but a belief system, like any religion. Again, these terms are fluid (so I'm not trying to be too strict here) and atheism and agnosticism both have sliding scales in terms of belief and believers, but there is a clear distinction between atheists and agnostics and I think its important for atheists who say they are atheist to understand that that means you are making a clear statement of belief that God does not exist (as opposed to does exist). Otherwise, you are an agnostic, or non-religious, or irreligious, or something else, in terms of labels. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism

 

None of those definitions are incompatible with a lack of certainty. It is entirely fair to say that I believe there is no God. Beliefs don't entail certainty, and I do not claim to know there is no God with certainty. Similarly, there are theists out there who do not claim certainty, but still believe God exists.

 

If you're comfortable with Wikipedia as an authority on the definition, then look no further than this entry which describes the philosophy of people who fall into both agnosticism and atheism:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

 

 

But really, you just need to look at the populations. The most well known "atheists" are not how you claim, and a great many (maybe most? I don't have the stats on hand) of self identified atheists do not claim certainty. When that is the case, you're insisting on a definition that doesn't actually reflect the definition used in practice.

 

 

The words simply have variable interpretations and I don't see much point on insisting that people adopt one when the train has already left the station.

 

 

[Amazatron]

10 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

This post is 100% correct.  

 

95% confidence interval

[Boyle5150]

5 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

If you think it is, then you've paid literally no attention to what anybody has said for the past several Pages. That's why you need to fixate less on the leading questions, the bad faith debating and actually read listen and think. It helps a lot in life in general.

Ok, if you see another argument that I am missing due to my bad faith debating then please pose it right now.  Clearly and concise.   

I don’t want you to have any misunderstanding on my point. 

 

Maybe try not to run so fast 

[Boyle5150]

Just now, Amazatron said:

 

95% confidence interval, nothing is 100%

I’ll take it. 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, Boyle5150 said:

Ok, if you see another argument that I am missing due to my bad faith debating then please pose it right now.  Clearly and concise.   

I don’t want you to have any misunderstanding on my point. 

 

Maybe try not to run so fast 

 

Pretty much every post. Also you can't get the arguments so horrifyingly wrong for several pages and then blame it on me. So reread everything, and if you're still unable to, or if my post up there to films was too confusing, I may have to break this down in a meme or something.

[Nokra]

Why are daddy and daddy fighting? Do I need to go live with Grandma now?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

That would make sense.... if it weren't Trump.

 

Trump had a very specific platform: build a wall, get out of international trade agreements, limit immigration, ban Muslims. Along the way, he brought people like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. He's not being vague; he had a much more established platform.

 

So yes, what others did in the past isn't relevant in the slightest to MAGA. Wearing it means you're probably either a racist or ignorant to what it means, similar to people who weirdly believe southern heritage shit, and are likely one of those guys who thought "boTh SiDeS" was a logical conclusion from Charlottesville or require an electron microscope to view the narrow band of phrases/actions that can be defined as racist.

 

It doesn’t mean anything, even when Trump says it. The audience imbues the phrase with meaning for themselves. If you ask a person wearing the MAGA hat what it means to them, you’ll get all sorts of answers. I do think one can make an educated presumption about some of the broad positions held by a MAGA hat wearer that are fair prior to any revelatory information by the wearer.

 

As an example it is more likely than not that the wearer favors policies like building the wall. I think that is a completely fair presumption based on both personal observation and policy polls.

[Boyle5150]

16 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

If you think it is, then you've paid literally no attention to what anybody has said for the past several Pages. That's why you need to fixate less on the leading questions, the bad faith debating and actually read listen and think. It helps a lot in life in general.

 

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

It doesn’t mean anything, even when Trump says it. The audience imbues the phrase with meaning for themselves. If you ask a person wearing the MAGA hat what it means to them, you’ll get all sorts of answers. I do think one can make an educated presumption about some of the broad positions held by a MAGA hat wearer that are fair prior to any revelatory information by the wearer.

 

As an example it is more likely than not that the wearer favors policies like building the wall. I think that is a completely fair presumption based on both personal observation and policy polls.

If you fail to grasp that simple concept then it’s you, not me. 

[SaysWho?]

12 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

 

If you fail to grasp that simple concept then it’s you, not me. 

 

Gonna respond to him in a minute, but you don't belong in this conversation since now you're just quoting others and saying, "Read this!" when they're at least taking the time to not bullshit people with leading questions and dishonest bad faith debating.

 

It's clear you can't articulate yourself at all and don't know what anyone's saying, so at those point, you can only upvote and quote others. Probably explains why your skipped some of the long posts here after promising to answer them.

[Anathema-]

How can you tell when you beat a new atheist in a debate? They say they'll respond to you later. 

[Boyle5150]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

Gonna respond to him in a minute, but you don't belong in this conversation since now you're just quoting others and saying, "Read this!" when they're at least taking the time to not bullshit people with leading questions and dishonest bad faith debating.

 

It's clear you can't articulate yourself at all and don't know what anyone's saying, foo at those point, you can only upvote and quote others. Probably explains why your skipped some of the long posts here after promising to answer them.

Look stop with the ad hominem  attacks.  If someone else argues the same point as me and if I quote them then you’ll just have to deal with it. I’v made my case and most will agree that it’s the correct answer.  

 

You need a break for your sanity.  Just listen to how your talking to me right now.  

 

Here is my point: Not everyone who wears a MAGA hat is a racist.  MAGA has many meanings to many different people.