Total posts: 14,582
-->
@oromagi
Election Fraud 2020: Capitol ‘Siege’ | Red Flags Point to Orchestrated False Flag ‘Insurrection’
Created:
-->
@Death23
Maybe congress already knows about it and the heads have rolled already.
Why is this ("congress already knows") not being covered in "the news"?
Is it not "news-worthy"?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The cops sure are corrupt. Then again if the teachers aren’t teaching you anything, it is to fire the teachers and not close the damn board of education. Defunding the police doesn’t help because we need proper management of money in the police department, not to left them with a bunch of douchebags ruining the police as a whole. The police obviously needs money to fire corrupt officers and find new ones.
The cops sure are corrupt.
we need proper management of money in the police department
SO, ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD GIVE THE CORRUPT COPS MORE MONEY?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Good point.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The only logical explanation for letting the protestors in is to accomplish a political objective - such as increasing online censorship and directing the tools of US military occupation inwards on the domestic population.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In other words, without humans there is no concept of "shape" and there is no concept of "earth".Why does that matter? Facts exist regardless of whether or not humans can verify them.
No, no they don't.
Statements and concepts like "shape" and arbitrary names like "earth" do not exist without humans, they do not exist "independently of a human mind".
Now, you might imagine, that THE OBJECT we call "earth" might "exist" "independently of a human mind", but really, isn't that just another unfalsifiable claim?
I mean, think about it.
You VERIFY EXISTENCE with YOUR MIND.
How do you know if something exists?
YOU VERIFY IT.
WITH YOUR MIND.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
its yours because you i herited it
I'm very very proud of all the free stuff I was given when I was born.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Please link to either video of the actual Scarborough footage or some "official" mainstream coverage.
Looking specifically for the quote you cited, I found, secondary, fringe and independent reports of the Scarborough event.
These reports say things like,
"Scarborough drops F bomb",
Who cares? The story is not about an F bomb.
"Scarborough accuses Capital police of assisting protestors"
Accuses?? Why don't they just show the footage? Can they not find it? Aren't they professional journalists??
It's weird to me how easily they can turn a story into a RED-HERRING by trying to make it about "the Scarborough" while obviously downplaying the actual story.
Nobody gives a shit about the Scarborough. THAT'S NOT THE STORY.
The "best" clip I could find so far, is from "the hollywood reporter" - [LINK]
It plays audio of the Scarborough after saying, "protestors BROKE INTO the Capital building" and then saying, "Scarborough calls for TRUMP's arrest" (which is what they want outrage all day and outrage all night turn the poor people against the other poor people in red hats) and "Scarborough ACCUSES police of cooperating with protestors".
It's not an "accusation". They're acting like he's "crazy".
They play the Scarborough audio over still images of protestors clashing with police, directly contradicting the audio, making Scarborough seem unhinged and out of touch with reality.
WHY DIDN'T THEY SIMPLY SHOW THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP OF THE PROTESTORS CALMLY AND PEACEFULLY BEING LET INTO THE CAPITOL BUILDING???
Ok, here's a clip from MSNBC - [LINK]
It's an uncut 7 minutes of AUDIO from the Scarborough rant with the f bomb clipped out.
In the full context, especially with the audio played over "scary" images of protestors clashing with police, the rant itself plays very strongly as a PRO-POLICE-STATE rant.
Make sure you pay attention to the part where they emphasize that "trumppies are cult members" (of course biden supporters aren't cult members, of course not).
I believe this clip also plays well because it suggests that the TRUMPPIES and the POLICE are "RACISTS" (pure rampant speculation, opinion stated as fact).
THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP IN THE FULL 7 MINUTES THEY DEVOTED TO THIS RANT.
Instead, when the Scarborough says "the cops opened the doors for them", that audio plays over protestors entering the building through a broken window and footage of protestors entering through a broken door and smashing a window with their fist.
The video very specifically suggests that the Scarborough is speaking metaphorically, as if their incompetence "opened the door". the Scarborough does devote a good portion of the rant to complaining about how unprepared the police seemed to be.
the Scarborough practically rants, "WE NEED TANKS AND MACHINEGUN NESTS AND RAZOR-WIRE ON EVERY STREET IN WASHINGTON!!!!!"
THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP.
WHY NOT JUST SHOW THE CLIP.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The police are claiming that pieces are being taken out of context and that most of the videos took place an hour or two after the invasion but it 's hard to know what to credit.
Why would they let people into the building AFTER "the invasion"?
Oh, it's over now? You guys are all leaving? Hey, before you go, why don't you ENTER THE BUILDING?? We'll even open the doors for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So you don’t believe in facts?
It's really quite simple.
A FACT must be empirically verifiable and or logically-necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So what about the example I just used, is the earth being round a fact?
The earth is apparently an "Oblate Spheroid".
This assessment is empirically verifiable and as such does qualify as a FACT.
hOWeVer,
It is NOT an "objective" fact, because all of the concepts and observations required to verify that FACT human-centric and are NOT extant, "regardless of humans and their experiences."
In other words, without humans there is no concept of "shape" and there is no concept of "earth".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Objectivity isn’t solely in regards to human experience,
In order to entertain a concept, any concept, that concept must be related to human experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
the earth being round is an objective fact
I'm pretty sure you meant to say, "Oblate Spheroid".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I asked you, if God existed as the Bible says, would the morality of His mind be objective to men?" You answered "yes". That is the sense in which we are using "objective". My claim is coherant.
The "moral code" of "YHWH" could only be considered "objective" if "YHWH" was defined as absolutely emotionless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why is your appropriate and mine not?
What are you complaining about?
@ethang5 has provided a beautiful definition.
Objective - Not sourced from, dependant on, or influenced by the mind OF MAN, regardless of whether it is concrete or theoretical.
It's almost impossible to get people to define their own terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Objective - Not sourced from, dependant on, or influenced by the mind OF MAN, regardless of whether it is concrete or theoretical.
I love it.
Please explain to me what "theoretical" "thing" meets your qualification of "not sourced from the mind OF MAN"?
Created:
-->
@Death23
Maybe they got the door opened from the outside somehow and the cops decided to just let them through.
The cops "just decided"?
All the cops at the front of the building were brandishing their weapons and yelling at people.
Did you watch the second video?
Here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyOiKJf45lQ (just click through the "warnings" they mean nothing).
Screaming commands at people while implicitly threatening deadly force is standard-operating-procedure.
If they "just decided" to let people walk in, they'd be on "the news" today being pilloried as "pro-trump-idiots" who "infiltrated" the Capital police force.
Please turn the outrage knob on the side of your head all the way to 11.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If I say 1+1=2 is that a fact?
It is empirically demonstrable that you typed that sequence of characters. That is a FACT.
The statement itself (specifically "1+1=2") is TAUTOLOGICAL (merely coherent with systemic AXIOMS).
For example,
Would you say the statement, "BRANGLEDOG + RAMPLESAM = PLOMBLEGUM" is "true" or "a fact"?
You'd probably ask me to please, "make your definitions and AXIOMS explicit".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Are you denying that objectivity exists between conscious minds? Am I the only person you heard utter a word about objectivity?
Objectivity is defined as "unbiased".
Human experience is fundamentally SAMPLE-BIASED.
The term wouldn’t be a word if people didn’t believe in it.
There are a lot of words that refer to logically-incoherent concepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But that doesn’t mean hammers have emotion and the existence of hammers by your logic is concrete and demonstrable, making it objective.
Except that mathematics is not an OBJECT.
Look,
Mathematics is not a CONCRETE NOUN.
Mathematics cannot "do" anything.
Mathematics cannot "make decisions".
Think about what imaginary "advantage" "mathematics" would have if you could hypothetically say, "mathematics is objective".
Why does it matter to you if you can say, "mathematics is objective"?
What does the statement, "mathematics is objective" actually mean to you personally?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I’m sorry but what am I asserting exactly?
the quoted text:
I can easily counter this with objectivity exists between conscious minds,
Created:
-->
@Death23
Nah, I was just typing too fast. I'm really not so sure. More accurately I consider it something to be plausibly or probably answered by the upcoming investigations.
Do you think that it might be conceivable that someone wants to make the trumpians look extra scary and calculated that getting video of them wandering aimlessly on the floor of the Senate would stoke broad public outrage?
THIS IS AN ATTENTION WAR.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ok sure, you should also be proud of where you came fromWhy?You had nothing to do with that.its yours though
In what way is it "yours"?
Do you own it like property?
Did you make it yourself?
Did you earn it?
Can it be taken away?
It makes zero sense to be "proud" of something you never earned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So again I ask, is mathematics subjective?
Yes.
It's an abstract system of (intrinsically) meaningless squiggles that follows a set of logical AXIOMS.
When two or more people agree to the "rules of the game" then it becomes INTERSUBJECTIVE.
Many people mistakenly believe things like, "mathematics is the language of nature".
This couldn't be further from the truth.
The TAUTOLOGICAL nature of mathematics makes it SEEM "objective" (unbiased).
HoWEver, it is important to remember that everything a human does is in the pursuit of E-MOTION (biased).
With this in mind, mathematics is simply a tool.
Like a hammer.
The hammer doesn't tell you what to do.
The function of the hammer is a slave to the E-MOTION of the carpenter.
Here's a good example, [WEAPONS OF MATH DESTRUCTION]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I can easily counter this with objectivity exists between conscious minds,
You're going to have some trouble finding a definition that matches your naked assertion.
Created:
-->
@Death23
Oh well, I'm sure questions like this will be answered eventually,
You seem to have significantly more FAITH in the system than I do.
I haven't heard a single peep about this anywhere in "the news".
I'm actually very surprised my upload wasn't insta-banned by the magical algorithm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It depends on what sense "objective" is being used.
Which sense do you want to use?
Your self-serving definition of "objective" isnot the only definition of that word, and your understanding of it is not our roadmap.
Which definition do you want to use?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
enlightened centrism
Did I forget to mention I'm a radical anti-centrist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
How do you QUANTIFY intentions?This isn't a deposition. You got to get to the point.
Yes, you've convinced me that any legal or moral framework that relies on detecting INTENTIONS is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft.
By your "consequentialist" view, nobody should ever be convicted of accidentally or unintentionally committing a crime.
Isn't that one of the KEY legal obstacles to convicting TRUMP of many of his CRIMES?
It's been argued that the Georgia phone call was NOT criminal if TRUMP sincerely believes that he really and truly WON.
This would magically transform the phone call from being an implicit demand for falsifying vote tallies into an honest and sincere plea for "THE TRUTH".
ALSO,
There was a case a few years ago where a police officer accidentally entered a neighbor's apartment, mistakenly thinking it was their own apartment and mistook their neighbor for an INTRUDER and shot them dead.
Their legal defense argued that it was not a crime because the officer sincerely believed their neighbor was an intruder.
Police are protected by a legal doctrine called "qualified immunity" which states that (IFF) the office believed at the time that what they were doing was perfectly legal, (THEN) their case can be dismissed. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Conceptually, communism is radical equality.Communism advocates fiscal equality and everything being nationalized. It has nothing to do with culture.The only way for everyone to be truly equal is for everyone to be (functionally) indistinguishable from one another.This isn’t true as the USSR maintained communism and diversity.
Sure.
Why are you in favor of "ASSIMILATION" and what does ideal "ASSIMILATION" mean to you in practical terms?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How do you determine WHO exactly transmitted tuberculosis to you?Whoever has the disease, whether they transmitted the disease to you or not, should get the disease treated on their dime.
How are you going to track down the person you plan on charging a dime?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The vast majority of Chinese people speak Chinese as a first language, so culturally, the nation is very homogeneous.
LANGUAGE =/= CULTURE
The people of China have a rich diversity of regional customs, beliefs, dialects and histories.
The people of China also have a broad spectrum of physical characteristics typical of their regional heritage.
Think of it like the regional and cultural differences between and within the SICILLIANS and the CALABRIANS and the TUSCANS.
Think of it like the regional and cultural differences between and within the IRISH and the SCOTTISH and the ENGLISH.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Not sure what you’re getting at, but intentions are a big factor in culpability.
How do you QUANTIFY intentions?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There has not been an atheist on this site I have corresponded with who did not have beliefs about gods or God (capital G meaning the Christian God as the true God) in their denial of the said gods/God.
This claim is demonstrably FALSE.
I remain UNCONVINCED that "YHWH" is real.
In exactly the same way that you are UNCONVINCED that "BRAHMAN" is real.
Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing [LINK]
I do NOT have "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in any particular concept of a god".
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Assimilation has nothing to do with communism,
Conceptually, communism is radical equality.
The only way for everyone to be truly equal is for everyone to be (functionally) indistinguishable from one another.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Let's say you get sick and go to the hospital and the doctor says you have tuberculosis.Who do you send to prison?How do the police investigate this "crime"?I said the punishment for getting a disease should be treatment paid for by the person with the disease; no jail necessary.
How do you determine WHO exactly transmitted tuberculosis to you?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The Chinese were homogeneous.
This claim is demonstrably FALSE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
How do you QUANTIFY "the probability of outcomes"?It depends on the situation. If we're at a casino the outcomes become very quantifiable. If we're doing sports betting it starts to get a bit fuzzier. And when you have a confrontation on the street you just got to start eyeballing based on your life experiences. Unfortunately many situations aren't quantifiable and have to be eyeballed.
So, it boils down to INTENTION?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Please explain how your concept of "morality" qualifies as, "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
When we say God's morality is objective, we aren't referring to whether its existence is concrete or not. Why is it difficult for you to understand that each definition of a word has a different meaning? Your definition of "objective" is incorrect in a discussion about objective morality.
"OBJECTIVE" AND "MORALITY" ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TERMS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Because the future is uncertain, one should evaluate decisions based on the probability of outcomes as opposed to the outcomes themselves.
How do you QUANTIFY "the probability of outcomes"?
Don't you ACTUALLY mean, "the road to hell is paved with GOOD INTENTIONS"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Are you familiar with the concept of deontological ethics?Consequentialism is better
There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.
His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."
The farmer doesn't reply.
A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.
His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"
The farmer doesn't reply.
A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.
The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."
The farmer doesn't reply.
The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.
The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."
The farmer doesn't reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
MORALITY IS AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT.So is math, is math subjective?
Mathematics is INTERSUBJECTIVE.
Mathematics is TAUTOLOGICAL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I agree. Which is precisely why no morality of men can ever be authoritative and legitimate. The only truly objective morality would be one not sourced from humans beings.
Phenomenal.
Just show me this "objective" moral OBJECT.
pLEASE?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I consider myself a DEIST but I'm not convinced "intelligence" is a concept that applies to "the unknowable" "source".You should be convinced, intelligence is the single most common denominator that makes any Supreme Being what It is.
How are you defining "intelligence"?
There are many religions that use language consistent with MAGNUM MYSTERIUM.
Unless of course you want to go out on a limb and say God is a thing.
How is "god" NOT "a thing"?
I mean, "god" is necessarily (EITHER) "a thing" (OR) "a no-thing", right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
"Blue" can be either an ABSTRACT noun or a CONCRETE noun,
This is a great example.
by the way, "BLUE" is not a noun.
"BLUE" is (generally) a subjective property of an OBJECT AND NOT AN OBJECT ITSELF.
AN OBJECT can have the subjective property of appearing to be "BLUE" (under certain lighting conditions).
BUT THERE IS NO OBJECT THAT IS CALLED A "BLUE".
unless perhaps you named an object (or a person) "blue".
kindoflike how "ORANGE" can be an OBJECT and or a subjective property of an OBJECT depending on the context in which the word "ORANGE" happens to be employed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I have a PhD in English Lit
I'm not sure why people insist on making unfalsifiable claims and or insist on DOXXING THEMSELVES.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
A machine could do that given the instruction without any need for a mind.
Great point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the answer is because they believe there was widespread fraud and that the election was illegitimate. They believe that because trump and groups like fox and news max say it constantly even though it is all lies.
Also,
Are you maybe perhaps, pro-censorship?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
At what point are the consequences too great that it's just not worth it and we should just let him go?
Are you familiar with the concept of deontological ethics?
Created: