Nathan

Here's something to keep you exasperated for a while: http://www.governmentisgood.com By the way, in the spirit of this Government is Good website, I just protected your computer by posting this link, because if I hadn't, you would have thrown your monitor out the window and peed all over the cpu. Where would you be without me?

I have gold and silver coins. People used silver coins prior to 1964. Any quarter you find that is 1964 or earlier is made of silver. People used gold coins prior to the nationalization of the currency in 1913. I suspect that whenever the dollar does collapse, I can simply use the gold/silver coins I have to pay for things, or deposit them in a bank and use some kind of digital currency that represents the gold or silver I deposited.

So people shouldn't state their opinions because they might be wrong or criticized? I guess I shouldn't have stated my opinions and skepticism about anarchism on this board back when I first discovered FDR, because now someone can go back and criticize my posts from 7 yrs ago.

Not only that, but the video conveniently leaves out the following caveats prefacing statements he changed his mind about 5 years ago: This video, and a lot of memes and other nonsense out there on Facebook and Youtube are just a new, exasperating yet creative way to be a troll.

Wendy McElroy

You wouldn't be asking this if it were not ok with you. I think that's important and say exactly this to her. Then see how you feel about her response (relieved, visible, invisible, frustrated, angry, happy, sad etc), then, tell her those feelings.

Would some one help me understand why getting a small amount (small compared to what?) is frowned upon? At what amount would it not be frowned upon? Perhaps I just need to be in "those shoes" to understand. It's not that I don't empathize with the feeling but I'm not understanding it's source nor can I envision myself feeling that way over a small donation or tip. Conversely, I don't understand why this dynamic exists to the degree that others would use it to say "fuck you" to another person. As in, "he was a shitter waiter so I'm leaving him my two cents, literally." Put it this way, it's as foreign to me as some one saying "bless you" or whatever in response to a sneeze. I'm being dense, yes? I don't know if you live in the U.S. but leaving a very small tip is often considered more of a statement than leaving no tip at all. It's also kind of passive aggressive. I can see why too, because it ensures that the waiter is not under the impression that you simply forgot. Again, if you look at this from Stef's point of view, he's living off donations. If I were living from donation to donation, or even depending on the timely payment of clients for my work just so that I could pay the bills, I would look in my inbox, see the e-mail about a donation, feel momentarily excited and then be a bit disappointed at the amount. All Stef "said" was a fucking sad face with a caveat that he doesn't want to sound ungreatful and apparently that was enough for overwhelming vitriol, stabby memes and flow charts. Yes digging, trolly flow charts based on a total straw man. That kind of overreaction is not the reaction of people who have a high level of self-awareness or empathy. Surely, for at least some of those people, Stef had earned at least a little curiosity before jumping to narratives, foregone conclusions and cold, calculated attacks. As someone who is a little critical of Stef's due diligence in research citations, you can't claim I'm saying this because I'm some mindless sycophant.

Going through all this is exhausting. I think I have posted plenty of examples here of what I was talking about on the Sunday show. Again, my only intention is to help improve the quality, consistency and integrity of your presentations so that hopefully you can gain some ground in the skeptic and secular communities.

Uncited. Where did they get their data? "...new government sources reveal" without a link is not exactly good journalism. Again, wouldn't be surprised if it's true, but it comes from a really badly designed website and they don't cite where they got this info from. For all anyone knows they made it up. May want to google this and find out if there are other sources.

Original source unknown. It's not that I can't believe it but this guy did not even mention where this data came from.

This is fine but here's the primary source article the author of that article failed to link: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/SD25-2-2004E.pdf?

This one is fine, but you might want to add his original source since he didn't link it, a book available here: http://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Priorities-Agenda-Economic-Well-being/dp/0886452031

This blogger's source link is broken. I'm sure it's right but who knows now? Maybe it was moved.

Barbara Defoe Whitehead has a PhD in History. I don't know where she's getting this info. There are no citations. Is she making it up as she writes? Why would the Atlantic not post footnotes or a bibliography?

This one isn't even cited on the site linked. Zero source data.

I don't want to be annoying or overly critical, but I do want you to establish a foothold in atheist and more specifically, skeptic groups. This would be a greater boon to FDR than being popular among the religious libertarians or conservative groups. That said, I'm going to have to point out some issues here. None of this is to discredit your conclusions, nor do I necessarily disagree with what you're saying, because I think there IS enough empirical data out there somewhere. However, as someone reporting science and trying to back up theory reasoned from first principles with empirical evidence, you really have to be diligent. You can't have a theory and then just look for evidence that supports it any old place. These sources do not link to primary source data, it dead ends at a conservative anti-gay marriage site, who knows where the numbers they're quoting come from. Even people who don't want to show bias have a tendency to fudge the numbers if not directly referencing them, let alone people with a strong religious tendency toward bias.

Link is broken on NFI statistics. I don't know where they got their data from. I tried following the links around and even tried Googling these results and I end up running in circles through secondhand conservative (religious) sites quoting this to prove their original bias. I would love to be able to point to the original study. You should really be pointing to source data, because these conservative/religious sites cannot be trusted with data.

It's weird that you can write a post but can't read one. I spent about 15 minutes reading Stef's post very carefully and thinking about the possible explanations that Stef mentioned for the $2 donation. I noticed that the list didn't cover all of the reasons why someone might donate $2. I considered talking about that in my post, but I decided it would be more relevant to point out that Stef's own website encourages small donations. The donation page doesn't suggest that these small donations might cause anxiety or unhappiness. Presumably you feel that I didn't correctly read Stef's post. Please feel free to enlighten me if you wish. After looking at the dontion page I agree, it is a little confusing and it was not mentioned as a possibility as a case. I also don't think everyone knows about the PayPal fees either. This is worth strong consideration and I think it's wise to change it. However, given the level of vitriol and anger in the responses to this, I can also agree with Stef that you don't get that angry about something like this without it being ... not about this. People were not at all curious, they were very quick to anger and quick to interpret it their own way and very quick to create narratives about it. Not only that but one person created a nasty, very stabby meme attacking Stef and his wife. Given that kind of response, I can't blame Stef (or anyone) for going on defense.

It's weird that you can write a post but can't read one.

Years and years ago bought a three dollar drink from a bartender, dropped 50 cents in his jar, he tilted the jar and gave it back saying "I think you need this more than I do."

For the same reason they say they no longer believe the nonsense about Christianity yet say they'll raise their kids Catholic. They're assholes.

This is all nonsense, crazy conspiracy theory stuff, similar to claims made about other shootings and attacks including 9/11. Alex Jones is at the head of all this, which lends a negative amount of credibility to it all. Frankly, not only is it all really very insulting to the victims of this shooter, but it's embarrassing. This is a philosophy site where people are supposed to learn how to think rationally, not get dragged into paranoid delusions. Lately, I've had little inclination to point people to this site, for fear they'll find the message board.

Speaking of emotional honesty, this thread is really disappointing and upsetting to me.

It isn't the best argument against gun control anyway: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/ The article does make one terrible point about cops, public works and urban planning, but irrelevant to the overall point that the claim is historically inaccurate.