Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 110: Cleveland Steamer

(+) Yeah! (+)

Wanglicious posted...

nono, i know shorts. investment ain't a field i'm ignorant on and i'm pretty close to a guy who's done this for a living for 30+ years, loving shorts.

the market just has had a rocket strapped to its back since Trump won and there's no end in sight. investors who were playing shorts got creamed months ago, any new guy doing it is hoping he doesn't get fucked like they did too. certainly, if you're zeroed in on a company it may be something you can work with (this is me) but picking the losers has been incredibly painful because while you might get one, three others just went up 5%.

Ah. Misunderstood your level of specificity there.
---

Wanglicious posted...

what about it is scrambled to you.
like what in particular are you confused on from this page?

example, this isn't pretty straightforward:
Wanglicious posted...

how is literally saying "i'm not justifying this" saying that i'm justifying it.
once you saw the reaction of course it's something you could expect. you'd be foolish not to.

as is anything before that, saying KP's a liar is direct.
what is it that you don't seem to get? the stuff with SEP? what specifically confuses you?

You go on and on and on and on and say nothing. Like that 8 minute interview of Tom cruise on scientology. He spent 8 minutes talking and all that he said was "scientology = helping people." He didn't literally speak that sentence repeatedly for 8 minutes, but nothing he said translated to anything else.

I could say something like "I am saying something right now and this is what I'm saying" and could follow that up with paragraphs just reiterating that sentence without actually saying anything beyond that. Just imagine reading paragraphs and paragraphs of that, and how exactly you'd feel about it at the end. At times, that's how I feel after reading your arguments across many posts.

In this case, I could take it at face value that you don't feel whatever it is this is about was justified, and if you say you don't think it's justified, I will believe you, but everything else has just felt like a series of pointless tangents in various directions where nothing of value is provided.

"I didn't mean to give the impression I felt _____ was justified. If I came across that way, it was unintentional."

Done. Explained. You said... exponentially more than that, when that was sufficient. Why are we posting definitions of "explanation?" Why are we quoting previous posts? Okay, I get that people have said things to you and you feel the need to defend your position. We have all been there. I've handled it worse before, so I absolutely get that. It just seems like you said something that gave people an idea about you that you didn't mean for them to have, and your way of addressing that was to compound it instead of addressing it at the source, which would be whatever you said (probably in the previous topic) that led to the "justified" accusation. Maybe find that and break it down and see if you can figure out what might have been misconstrued. I wasn't invested in that element of the conversation at the time, so I won't be much help on that.
---

Again, the type of shit Trump encourages by refusing to hold Russia accountable. This time with nuclear plants!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-07/russians-are-said-to-be-suspects-in-hacks-involving-nuclear-site
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

It just seems like you said something that gave people an idea about you that you didn't mean for them to have, and your way of addressing that was to compound it instead of addressing it at the source,

...except that's what i did.
i, verbatem, said that i was not justifying or approving of it and to not put words in my mouth. you mentioned me quoting myself - yeah. because i literally said that.

KP then comes into this topic and does exactly that, saying i was justifying it.


how does the simplest, most direct statement mean the exact opposite?

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Why are we posting definitions of "explanation?"

first off, it was justification, not explanation. second, because the convo got into the difference on how explanation, expectations, and justifications are all different and independent of each other.

your dictionary bit? SEP says you shouldn't expect unjustified actions.
that doesn't make sense so i get into it with a few examples and see if maybe the issue is in definitions. if you ain't using the same dictionary, of course it won't make sense. once that's done, should you A) be able to prove explanations are fine, and B) prove that expectations are fine, both without having to get into any justifications at all, then you reach the same conclusion i'm at.

what you're complaining about here is the argument goes on to a more detailed level. and i mean... of course it would, SEP ain't saying i'm justifying anything. no beef there, it's him going "hey, here's some things about how it's easy to misunderstand," and me going "hey, here's why what you're saying doesn't make sense."

i honestly don't think KP misunderstood anything there because it's pretty hard to misunderstand "this is not me justifying" to meaning the exact opposite.

i just think he's being a jackass and lying through his teeth.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

us posts? Okay, I get that people have said things to you and you feel the need to defend your position. We have all been there. I've handled it worse before, so I absolutely get that. It just seems like you said something that gave people an idea about you that you didn't mean for them to have, and your way of addressing that was to compound it instead of addressing it at the source, which would be whatever you said (probably in the previous topic) that led to the "justified" accusation. Maybe find that and break it down

for the record, this is the very first thing done.
before anything else came with SEP.

literally went back to it, pulled out the sentence saying the exact opposite of what he accused me of. there isn't anything to break down. it's three sentences, one of which is saying that it's literally not justifying anything.

Andrew's case is... also expected to be frank. they doubled down on the blackmail story so of course some people will treat it as "oh, if you're threatening to dox him then we'll just dox you." not justifying or approving the behavior so don't put words in my mouth there, just that this is absolutely expected.

but somehow that means "oh he's justifying it."
no, that's bullshit.
---

Wanglicious posted...

the market just has had a rocket strapped to its back since Trump won and there's no end in sight.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years

So basically it's been continuing the ascent it has been/

Wrst part about discussing Trump with my former conservative (because Trump ain't) friends who now worship him is this misconception he's doing anything for the economy.

I wish they could point to anyting he's done, any bill he's signed to ffect it, but they can't...i

Taswell posted...

Wanglicious posted...

the market just has had a rocket strapped to its back since Trump won and there's no end in sight.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years

So basically it's been continuing the ascent it has been/

Wrst part about discussing Trump with my former conservative (because Trump ain't) friends who now worship him is this misconception he's doing anything for the economy.

I wish they could point to anyting he's done, any bill he's signed to ffect it, but they can't...i

yeah, pretty much. the idea many had in 2015 was that while it was a rise we had to be careful about it. the market was priced pretty high then but figure... election, insecurity, trump being Mr. "I don't know WTF he's gonna do." all those factors should make the market rocky for a bit.

and it was for like 3 hours before going NOPE and shooting straight up.
i do think he's done some work for the stock market, though i wouldn't really say he's done anything for the economy. stock market does seem to love a lot of things he promises to cut or fuck with that will ruin it for everyone else. basically you know that if you're a company, with trump and republicans in power, you are not likely to be paying more anything anytime soon, so that's gone. instead, they're working pretty damn hard to give you a nice tax cut. doesn't affect any ordinary person, does affect stocks and people with millions.
---

Not to start the debate up again, but to expand a bit on why I believe it's very rare to actually have a situation where you should expect unjustified situations...

Taking your example of somebody being highly emotional, or even mentally unstable. If you get into saying something like, "Well, this person is crazy, so expect X reaction," you're basically getting into justifying it by going "Well, they're crazy" in the first place. If you're expecting something unjustified because of X, well... 9 times out of 10, X is the justification to begin with. They're crazy, they're emotional, they're young, and so on. There's a reason stuff like that shows up in defense of actions. Once you get into the action of expecting something, you're already justifying why it's right to expect that.

Now, you can justify something without AGREEING with it, to be fair. Justifying and agreeing are two different things, but that's a whole different discussion.
---

I'm pretty certain the post election rally has been much more about total Republican control (and thus the possibility of tax cuts) than anything about Trump specifically. As far as Wall Street is concerned he's just a pen.

Of course, Congress getting anything done on taxes is looking less and less likely at this point.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

If you get into saying something like, "Well, this person is crazy, so expect X reaction," you're basically getting into justifying it by going "Well, they're crazy" in the first place. If you're expecting something unjustified because of X, well... 9 times out of 10, X is the justification to begin with. They're crazy, they're emotional, they're young, and so on. There's a reason stuff like that shows up in defense of actions.

that's not an actual justification though. that's why i got into the definition, what you're describing here is somebody trying to justify it but then failing at it. justifying doesn't mean simply coming up with an excuse, which is what you've described here. none of those arguments - crazy, emotional, young, etc - are ever considered as actual justifications, just excuses. those two words don't mean the same, you can see the definition earlier.

for something to be justified, it needs to be just. has to be right, reasonable, well-grounded, sensible, etc. it's not just an excuse, it's an excuse with a strong, reasonable basis that vindicates this person's actions as something correct. that is what justification means. if you say "I can't justify this," you're saying that you can't find a just reason for that action.

i feel you confuse the idea of any excuse meaning the same thing.
and maybe you aren't alone in that.
---

Semantics Containment Topic 110
---

Is it safe to pay attention to this topic again yet?
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Is it safe to pay attention to this topic again yet?

No.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

No.

---

It was never safe.

You were never safe.

He's right behind you.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I'm pretty certain the post election rally has been much more about total Republican control (and thus the possibility of tax cuts) than anything about Trump specifically. As far as Wall Street is concerned he's just a pen.

Of course, Congress getting anything done on taxes is looking less and less likely at this point.

Eh, I think the GOP could absolutely get something done on taxes if they would just decouple it from healthcare.
---

But then they'd lose a lot of political capital for doing anything with healthcare, no?
---

Wanglicious posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

If you get into saying something like, "Well, this person is crazy, so expect X reaction," you're basically getting into justifying it by going "Well, they're crazy" in the first place. If you're expecting something unjustified because of X, well... 9 times out of 10, X is the justification to begin with. They're crazy, they're emotional, they're young, and so on. There's a reason stuff like that shows up in defense of actions.

that's not an actual justification though. that's why i got into the definition, what you're describing here is somebody trying to justify it but then failing at it. justifying doesn't mean simply coming up with an excuse, which is what you've described here. none of those arguments - crazy, emotional, young, etc - are ever considered as actual justifications, just excuses. those two words don't mean the same, you can see the definition earlier.

for something to be justified, it needs to be just. has to be right, reasonable, well-grounded, sensible, etc. it's not just an excuse, it's an excuse with a strong, reasonable basis that vindicates this person's actions as something correct. that is what justification means. if you say "I can't justify this," you're saying that you can't find a just reason for that action.

i feel you confuse the idea of any excuse meaning the same thing.
and maybe you aren't alone in that.

"Right" and "reasonable" don't have static definitions for every situation, though. If something is "reasonable" for a crazy person to do, then it's justified, even if it's NOT "just." That's why things like mental state and emotions factor into crimes. That's why there's such a thing as a crime of passion. Killing somebody isn't just... But if it can be explained as an action brought about by severe emotion in the moment, then it is considered justified for that situation and it can change the charge. That doesn't make it morally right, but it does make it "reasonable" for the situation.

This is fairly common in law. If a crazy person kills somebody, but it's proven that they're crazy, then being crazy becomes the justification and not just an excuse, and that changes things... Even though it's not saying the killing itself was right or just.
---

Everyone Argues With Wang About Nothing Containment Topic
---

I've tried to shift the conversation several times to no avail!
---

Have we talked about this fucking embarrassment yet?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/world/europe/donald-trump-poland-speech.html
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Everyone Argues With Wang About Nothing Containment Topic

it's like fiercely debating an automatic reply email
---

Here's my one post about it

The "tone" thing that people take issue with is best exemplified when Wang describes it as "CNN crying about their victimhood."
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I've tried to shift the conversation several times to no avail!

i mean it's not like i've been silent on other subjects. haven't really reacted much to yours because they're just kinda "meh, yeah" topics.

StealThisSheen posted...

"Right" and "reasonable" don't have static definitions for every situation, though. If something is "reasonable" for a crazy person to do, then it's justified, even if it's NOT "just." That's why things like mental state and emotions factor into crimes. That's why there's such a thing as a crime of passion. Killing somebody isn't just... But if it can be explained as an action brought about by severe emotion in the moment, then it is considered justified for that situation and it can change the charge. That doesn't make it morally right, but it does make it "reasonable" for the situation.

This is fairly common in law. If a crazy person kills somebody, but it's proven that they're crazy, then being crazy becomes the justification and not just an excuse, and that changes things... Even though it's not saying the killing itself was right or just.

surprisingly no, if you start to argue the difference between the two in legal terms the difference between justification and excuse is actually really important and more pronounced than the common usage we've been talking about. in criminal law, justification is when you basically say yes you broke the law but if you hadn't something more wrong/illegal would've been done. like yeah you trespassed but you were being chased by a guy trying to kill you. or self defense for the commonly used one. legally, when you're justified you get away with it. you committed something technically illegal but it protected a greater wrong.

excuses are different. this would include insanity and changes to mental state. these things would still need to have some reasonable basis and are not guaranteed to have you go free though it can lessen the charge. for your example, a crazy person killing someone due to their insanity would not be considered a legal justification, it would be considered a legal excuse. that does change things from murder (which requires mental state), though they'd still be hit with manslaughter. if they were justified though, they'd walk.

but these two are very different legally. this is neither here nor there to the rest of the convo, but just mostly trivia.
---

Wanglicious posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

I've tried to shift the conversation several times to no avail!

i mean it's not like i've been silent on other subjects. haven't really reacted much to yours because they're just kinda "meh, yeah" topics.

StealThisSheen posted...

"Right" and "reasonable" don't have static definitions for every situation, though. If something is "reasonable" for a crazy person to do, then it's justified, even if it's NOT "just." That's why things like mental state and emotions factor into crimes. That's why there's such a thing as a crime of passion. Killing somebody isn't just... But if it can be explained as an action brought about by severe emotion in the moment, then it is considered justified for that situation and it can change the charge. That doesn't make it morally right, but it does make it "reasonable" for the situation.

This is fairly common in law. If a crazy person kills somebody, but it's proven that they're crazy, then being crazy becomes the justification and not just an excuse, and that changes things... Even though it's not saying the killing itself was right or just.

surprisingly no, if you start to argue the difference between the two in legal terms the difference between justification and excuse is actually really important and more pronounced than the common usage we've been talking about. in criminal law, justification is when you basically say yes you broke the law but if you hadn't something more wrong/illegal would've been done. like yeah you trespassed but you were being chased by a guy trying to kill you. or self defense for the commonly used one. legally, when you're justified you get away with it. you committed something technically illegal but it protected a greater wrong.

excuses are different. this would include insanity and changes to mental state. these things would still need to have some reasonable basis and are not guaranteed to have you go free though it can lessen the charge. for your example, a crazy person killing someone due to their insanity would not be considered a legal justification, it would be considered a legal excuse. that does change things from murder (which requires mental state), though they'd still be hit with manslaughter. if they were justified though, they'd walk.

but these two are very different legally. this is neither here nor there to the rest of the convo, but just mostly trivia.

The definition of legal justification is:

"A sufficient or acceptable excuse or explanation made in court for an act that is otherwise unlawful; the showing of an adequate reason, in court, why a defendant committed the offense for which he or she is accused that would serve to relieve the defendant of liability."

So you're a bit off. Insanity can, in fact, be justification, as can something like self-defense. It's only an excuse if they admit wrong-doing. If they don't admit wrong-doing, then it's justification.

So, for example, if a crazy person says they killed somebody because they fully believed that the person was a government agent out to kill them, and thus they believe they did nothing wrong, that is justification, not an excuse.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

So, for example, if a crazy person says they killed somebody because they fully believed that the person was a government agent out to kill them, and thus they believe they did nothing wrong, that is justification, not an excuse.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity_defense

The insanity defense is traditionally classified as an excuse defense, in contrast with justification defenses like self-defense. This classification indicates that, while the action committed by a defendant was impermissible, the actor is excused because of a prevailing condition, here insanity.



among the things i looked up, legal-dictionary was one of the early things i saw too but quickly realized it wasn't specific enough for layman's usage. as written there you wouldn't know the difference. this is a short blurb that may help a bit in terms of categories, though it still isn't explained well.

http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Justification_and_Excuse

but it does help understand which defenses are justifications and which defenses are excuses.


edit:
and no, both of them admit to wrongdoing. if you don't admit to wrongdoing at all, neither is applied.
in a justification, the wrongdoing is accepted as something to avoid a greater wrong.
in an excuse, the wrongdoing is accepted but you try to explain why you aren't (completely) at fault.
---

That definition of an insanity defense is more for "They did it, but they're crazy." Which, yes, is an excuse.

When you get into cases of "They felt they were in danger and they're crazy," then it's usually no longer an excuse, since the insanity isn't the entire defense anymore, it's just a factor. Doesn't make the killing any less wrong, but if it's a case of something like "They've seen this person numerous places in the day and thought they were being followed to be killed because they believe the government is out to kill them," then it becomes a justification.

EDIT: Eh, wrongdoing isn't that simple. An excuse is "They did something horrible, but they're insane." In justification, you're not technically admitting wrongdoing. You're admitting that it happened, but not that what you did overall was wrong/a crime, because of self-defense or whatever. It's splitting hairs, but it's important.
---

them feeling they were in danger is also an excuse, though i'm not sure where it would fall category-wise as that depends a bit on the circumstances. probably diminished capacity for this one? i mean i'm basically thinking of a schizo who kills someone and yeah, that just falls under excuse. could be multiple excuses mind you, but it doesn't hit the higher threshold because he's not justifying the crime (i.e., stating that though he did commit a crime, his wrongful actions should not be considered as such due to this greater reason), he's making an excuse to explain it (it's wrong but i was nuts).

for a legal justification, you need a greater wrong to have been prevented. i mean if you want to stick to the insane guy it's going to be hard to think of a good scenario where he's justified. even if he was drugged, involuntary intoxication's an excuse. it's a total defense mind you so he gets away with it, but it's different.

here's another link, i think this one explains the difference well as it makes a clear split between actor vs. criminal act to understand excuse vs. justification.
http://www.lectlaw.com/mjl/cl041.htm

cops are where this whole thing gets really weird, if you wanna bring it back to something common in the topic. because they sure do have an affinity for getting away with it as the higher position (law enforcement) changes things. they got their own rulebook.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Have we talked about this fucking embarrassment yet?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/world/europe/donald-trump-poland-speech.html

This guy is such a fucking disgrace.

The day when someone else becomes president cannot come soon enough
---

Eddv posted...

The day when someone else becomes president cannot come soon enough

---

The overall issue with taking justification as being by the letter is that many states allow a "heat of the moment" defense, which kinda flies in the face of all of that. There's a reason it's a gray area in general.

We're getting into semantics at this point, though.
---

ahh okay i think i get it. you're thinking about total defenses too. they sometimes apply to excuses too, though it's not guaranteed. heat of the moment (an excuse) could very well decrease the punishment, sometimes if the judge is really "nice" practically eliminate it. that said, there are other excuses which might completely work as total defenses. and of course you do have cases where you have both defenses at play and it gets weird/murky.

i don't think it's semantics but it's waaay off topic and into just too nuanced a discussion of legal language, which is pretty dry for most and not really worth continuing, yeah. but it's a neat thing to know about, as far as trivia goes.

(you can also run the idea by drak or weaku one day, they might have better sources that help clarify the difference.)
---

Some states/jurisdictions actually have heat of the moment fall under justification, which is why I mentioned it, which does nothing to help simplify it.
---

that's weird as hell.

meanwhile twitter tells me what one of tomorrow's story is gonna be.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx-man-armed-knives-reach-ivanka-trump-tower-article-1.3307254

Adames Benitez, 52, had the ballistic gear on under his shirt when he arrived at the Midtown building around 4 p.m., cops said.

He told the agents he was a U.S. senator there to talk to Ivanka Trump about her dress line, and that he owned the building, police said.

A quick search revealed that Benitez was carrying two throwing knives, a weighted sock and a fake New York State I.D. card, authorities said.

He was taken to Weill Cornell Medical Center for a psychiatric evaluation, cops said. He is charged with weapons possession and having a bogus ID.

cops said
police said
authorities said

i say for fuck's sake, please change the way you finish sentences daily news.
but yeah expect that story to gain traction tomorrow to probably cover something else up like a legit trump-russia story.
---

A weighted sock?

Like Homey the Clown?
---

I don't think so

Homey don't play that
---

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ywgpa5/police-broke-up-a-drug-fueled-vatican-priest-orgy

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/883230130885324802

seems like you care a lot, actually.
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/883229270943911936

I'm pretty sure Trump is solipsistic, so maybe in his mind this is world this is true
(Just like nobody knew healthcare was so complicated!)
---

https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/883277714869944321

Here is a photo - from Merkel's fbook page - of Trump & Putin's first encounter, an informal handshake/ pat on back. (h/t @Kevinliptakcnn) https://t.co/xEE9GQQ9dd

It begins.
---

damn when I read the words "photo" and "Merkel" I thought you were gonna post this thing

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEE1dh0W0AI4vEO.jpg
---

If you hear trump or any other GOPers say that the ACA is in a death spiral, the CMS says otherwise.

https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Premium-Stabilization-Programs/Downloads/Summary-Reinsurance-Payments-Risk-2016.pdf

The July 1 report states that the marketplaces are growing, that the mechanisms are working as intended, and that the risk adjustment scores for 2016 were very similar to those from 2015 - indicating that on average, there's not a ton of healthy people leaving or extra sick people joining.


Obviously this isn't to say that the ACA isn't without issues. But those issues aren't what the party in power is saying they are.
---

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/source-of-fraud-allegation-vs-bernie-sanders-wife-says-info-was-hearsay/

Did this get brought up amid the cancer that was the cnn discussion btw
---

Not that I'm aware of, but i did "miss" a few hundred posts.
---

Same, which is why I asked
---

In any case, I do actually support there being minor penalties for slander of that nature.
---

How about now, we done with that shit?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/883229270943911936

I'm pretty sure Trump is solipsistic, so maybe in his mind this is world this is true
(Just like nobody knew healthcare was so complicated!)

Imagine if he actually believes this
---