It appears to me as more nuanced than simple middle ground. It's bothering to articulate an opposing argument faithfully.

Steel Manning is the opposite of straw manning. The taking of the othersides position to argue it accurately as good as possible - perhaps even better than they do.

Agreed, not bad-faith strawmanning.

I've never heard of that term, I like it!

hard job i hear people talk about not reading post on pod cast but you go and start a pod cast that is reading the chat crazy

Some people invent the opposing argument or don't bother at all because it upsets people.

I learned the term from Eric Weinstein.

@Maw Yes. I think the silent majority in the US are the moderates who want to hear the true story rather than the obviously biased opinions of the media on both sides.

Steel man is a lot harder than straw man. You have to know for sure you're right, if you have a set conclusion.

Ahh thats some darkweb stuff there

people should get upset time to time its good for you

I learned steel man in college but they didn't call it that at that time.

I have been corporate censored by face book and Twitter. And so i looked for alternative. It is great to be able to interact with someone knowledgeable on a subject

Yea I figure if I split the middle and both sides are angry then that's more stuff to talk about in the chat!

I like to think of it as bipartisanship and fair ideological representation.

Mission accomplished on that tonight Rob. Lmao

I have a position that all forms of Marxism are anathema to Lockean Principle. I make value judgments on the political and economic from there.

this would be a great time to start a company like FB

For sure, fortunately during Q&A people weren't throwing around obscene language and insults everywhere as much as I thought they would.

During the actual presentation it was a bit different.

Well, @Maw , we can try harder if you were board.

I don't even look at the chat until the end so I miss all of that.

In which Locke does that principle appear? I have a pile of Locke which I've completely forgotten about with time.

Tonight was a bit critical of Trump's team so I had a feeling.

Yeah, it's understandable.

Tossed out a question about legal definitions earlier, should I toss it out again?

And personally I'm glad you were.

i guess most here are fam/work people

Critical is good if i can learn from it !

@Whithers I scrolled up and caught it. Did you have a link?

I looked up the statutory definition of voter in my state. It said a voter is a legal voter. Shouldn't the language be a bit better than using the term being defined in the definition?

so do you start the chat with an outline of where you want to go with it or are freestyle n it

RSMo 1.035. Voter defined. — Whenever the word "voter" is used in the laws of this state it shall mean registered voter, or legal voter.
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=1.035&bid=47&hl=voter%u2044

Legal voter is an umbrella term. It's generally a permanent resident of the US that is over the age of 18 and has no prior felony conviction.

It is good to hear what the other side's argument actually is! without the Slanderous, Virtuous and accusatory statements.

Yea @Whithers looking here in Arizona we have a qualified electors statute: https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00121.htm

Yeah, not real hip on the no felony convictions to vote. I think that protects judges way too much.

@osok the live chat is for the end of the show, I just take questions that I can catch as they scroll by. No rhyme or reason.

"Legal voter" is also different based on if the election is federal or state, IIRC. Robert likely knows more about this.

I think whithers that legal is pretty clear. Is it clear constitutionally since our laws our derived from that. Going to have to read the federalist papers more indepth

Yeah, now see much better description in Az statute.