Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 518488)

That's a very strong post. And I guess I'll just go back to the point that Republicans in the Senate who voted for Kavanaugh could surely have confirmed another nominee with similarly conservative views. And yet it seems like the sorts of biases Somin describes drove them to pick Kavanaugh because they were defending him from Democrats.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 518491)

ABA is a politically biased organization.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 518493)

It can’t with congress as it now is, but aren’t there staffed offices not politically appointed? What is CBO?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 518495)

This isn't con law.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 518500)

CBO has been repeatedly attacked as biased by conservative Republicans because what it said got in the way of what they wanted to do. It's naive in the extreme to think that conservatives will agree to be constrained by "neutral" agencies.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 518486)

Interesting. I think I understand what you are saying here, but let me see if I can use a hypothetical example and you can tell me if I am tracking you. Suppose someone makes a statement that is demonstrably false. Something like: "Hillary wasn't branded as shrill." Then, suppose someone else does a simple Google search and finds dozens of article discussing the phenomenon of Hillary being branded as shrill. If the first person were to, in your words, try to preserve his original dubious claim via semantic gamesmanship, he might say something completely off the wall like:

"I can cross reference two of just about any words and give you three pages of google links (most of which are regurgitations of the same text from aggregators). 'Ernest Borgnine nude' and 'jalapeno cheesecake' each deliver ten pages of links."

And then he might try to further distract with some childish sign off like: "Try again."

Is this a good illustration of what you are talking about? Instead of admitting he is wrong, the first person digs in and tries to preserve his dubious claim (here, that "Hillary wasn't branded as shrill") by ignoring the substance of the internet search (which is dozens of articles discussing how Hillary was branded as shrill). Instead, he engages in semantic gamesmanship, and tries to reframe the argument to be about something completely unrelated (whether you can generate lots of search hits with with random search terms). This person is not engaging in honest argumentation, because that would require him to admit he was wrong, which he is incapable of doing. So, instead, he tries to "win" the argument using distraction and semantic games so he does not have to admit that his original incorrect assertion was based not on any actual facts, but rather on his own deep-seated (albeit vehemently denied) biases.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 518502)

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/20...cans-will-too/ same as it ever was-

attacking CBO (as both parties do when in the majority) only shows the strength of the office's findings- the same would be true with my hypo "Character office findings." Would Trump attack the Character Office if it found Kavanaugh unfit? Of course- would it have given cover to a senator or two to vote no, maybe? But mostly it would provide an avenue for an actual finding and a standard for what that finding means- or should mean.

Just because I ran Sidd off doesn't mean this board is dying for someone new to step into the blinkered troll position- fuck I'm almost at the point of going back and rereading if sebby hasn't been right all along.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 518502)

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/20...cans-will-too/ same as it ever was-attacking CBO (as both parties do when in the majority) only shows the strength of the office's findings- the same would be true with my hypo "Character office findings." Would Trump attack the Character Office if it found Kavanaugh unfit? Of course- would it have given cover to a senator or two to vote no, maybe? But mostly it would provide an avenue for an actual finding and a standard for what that finding means- or should mean.

Just because I ran Sidd off doesn't mean this board is dying for someone new to step into the blinkered troll position- fuck I'm almost at the point of going back and rereading if sebby hasn't been right all along.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 518503)

careful- this sounds like when Ty didn't know the difference between FSAs and HSAs and was talking out his ass trying to school me- he still hasn't admitted his error.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 518504)

Of course a lot of my indictments of bias and blindered thinking are right. That’s why I’m being called a conservative.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 518497)

You are dead wrong if you believe based on a credible accusation alone, and a blanket denial, a nominee should be dinged. That's dangerous thinking.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 518498)

Political calculation. Replacing him so late might've pushed vote beyond election.

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 518472)

How often has anyone here made a true scientific claim, as opposed to a political, sociological or rhetorical claim? Cite please?

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 518511)

"As far as we know, only Sapiens can talk about entire kinds of entities that they have never seen, touched, or smelled. Legends, myths, gods, and religions appeared for the first time with the Cognitive Revolution. Many animals and human species could previously say ‘Careful! A lion! Thanks to the Cognitive Revolution, Homo sapiens acquired the ability to say. ‘The lion is the guardian spirit of our tribe.’ This ability to speak about fictions is the most unique feature of Sapiens language…You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven."