Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Best.Korea
There are other results there
Then why were you not specific?
I guess milk also gives some other nutrients
Yes, it is as close to complete as any other single source.
Berries + milk is 95% of the way to a complete diet. The nutrition of yogurt is almost identical to milk (almost like it's just slightly fermented milk).
Whey protein is made from milk and the only difference between whey protein and powdered milk is that they take the other nutrients out of whey protein.
In the end you have asserted "It's cheaper to buy powdered milk with some nutrients removed than it is to buy milk" which would be an absurd economic reality if it was real, which it is not.
Yes it does simplify logistics to be able to store the product without refrigeration and without a time limit to deliver to market; but assuming generally even production (which is a good assumption) directly delivering and consuming dairy simply skips the unnecessary steps.
In other words, only in regions without dairy farms would it be reasonable to expect powdered milk to be a cheaper option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
unless you're an expert in virology, you must appeal to authority at least as much, but actually more than, someone who trusts consensus.
I have expertise in philosophy which is the only expertise needed to point out when someone is not making a good argument.
Saying "I trust somebody therefore you must" is not a good argument.
we listen to our doctors and to consensus scientists.
I don't want to make it personal, but you've been fooled on science before and carried your misconceptions onto this website. I'm thinking of your confusion on theory and experimental basis of quantum mechanics. You are the perfect example of how it is impossible to determine who the experts are without at least some education in the subject.
You haven't met a "consensus of scientists" you've encountered blogs, tabloids, and psuedoscientific documentary videos.
There is no shortcut to knowledge and the tendency of human communities to generate consensus through trusting secondhand assertion is constant and history as well as a great and ongoing danger. This can be seen by playing the simple game called telephone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game. Add into that false initial statements and the fact that if people hear the same thing from multiple sources they tend to believe it more and you have an epistemological chaos generator.
That generator is every human society and we fight that chaos only through observation of reality, which is repeatable objective experiment, and logic.
In order to prevent self-reinforcing myths it is is a moral duty for people who do not understand the supporting arguments to not repeat and insist upon the conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
First off all, trust isn't black or white.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.Second, everyone puts some level of trust in the expertise of others because it's not avoidable.
so the question isn't whether you should trust people with expertise but what processes you should run through and what standards should be applied earn your trust.
Relevant.
There are indicators of expertise and indicators of incompetence. There are indicators of honesty and indicators of dishonesty.
The most reliable general indicator of incompetence and dishonesty is appealing to one's own authority rather than providing an argument. Honest competent people know why they believe what they believe and they know that their reasons are the reasons.
Debate is not where we rely on trust. Debate is where trust is vindicated or betrayed.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
First result:
Nutrition Facts:
60 servings, 20g protein per serving
1200g of protein.
1200g = 1.2 kg
Cost $50
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
LinkThe cheapest extracted protein is from milk, and this shouldn't surprise you: It's always cheaper to buy the milk.You can buy 2 kilograms of protein for less than 40 dollars, as a supplement.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Saying there are cheaper options (than the average expenses) does not disprove that food is expensive.You guys complained that food is expensive in USA. I just proved it isnt. You guys just choose to buy expensive stuff.
Also your idea of "just buy protein" is insanely ignorant. The cheapest extracted protein is from milk, and this shouldn't surprise you: It's always cheaper to buy the milk.
What is one of the main examples people give of a staple that has gotten more expensive?
Chicken eggs are the cheapest widely available source of protein, and they have a lot of cholesterol but you clearly don't care if your proposed diet ends in death in three years.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Where do you even find this bullshit?The first assassination attempt was caried out by a conservative republican who researched mass shootings and other celebrities. He was nothing but a loser who wanted to become famous by killing someone famous.The second attempt was a republican who favored Vivek and Nikki Haley.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
and that's your definition of a "threat to democracy"?No serious person would claim Trump would have accepted the results if he lost
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@WyIted
Well it's supposed to be easy.... because scientific experiments are supposed to be repeatable.we know how hard it is to detect that kind of fraud.
... but they've corrupted the journals to the point where they can package a bunch of speculation in field specific vernacular and get it published, evidence from experiments not required!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It's actually reminiscent of the Spanish inquisition. Far be it from clergy to actually do violence, they're men of god! They just point out the heretics and then the Spanish crown burns them alive.
Everybody has a scapegoat.
Plus the level of mutilation I've seen in the game of telephone from published paper to tabloid to blog is at times astounding.
You can start with "certain entangled properties observed" and end with "Scientists say universe is created by imagination"
or "observed magnitude drop curvature consistent with atmosphere in planetary transit survey" and end with "alien cities discovered, scientists say"
There are only three main possibilities:
1.) You heard it from a static source you can't debate, all you can do is follow the citation, if you don't understand the article you just have to use fuzzy logic and assume it's true or false as your worldview biases you.
2.) You heard it from someone who claims to understand the science, in which case you can debate them to the point where you are convinced they do in fact know more than you; at which point you can choose to learn more or trust them.
3.) You heard it from someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about but expects you to just believe them because what THEY consider an authoritative source made the assertion.
I think the key is you need to be basically literate in science and we need to actually teach our kids so they are. Then you need to ignore anyone who won't engage in a scientific debate (3). Just ignore them. Tell them "thank you for informing me of this source, but if you can't make the arguments the scientists make you shouldn't be trying to convince others. That is the role of people who think they understand the arguments involved."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
+1This universal point speaks to the beauty of science—it’s open to everyone and designed to withstand questioning, not because it’s about consensus, belief, or bias, but because it pursues universal, testable truths.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Yes, that is not an example of science. It is an appeal to authority.“Inject this new vaccine, or you lose your job. Because I trust the experts.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
If you do not trust experts or science, who or what do you trust to convey information that is true?
You must read carefully grasshopper.
I trust science. I do not trust people who assert things and then when asked for the reason respond "trust the science".
Science is a derivative of reason. Those who will not give reasons are not scientists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Turn your wretched input stream away from me vile bot!Does your wife obey you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
@Best.Korea
Mr. Science, you better watch out. Rand Paul was asking about you and he's got some muscle with him this time.
Created:
Posted in:
I've often ranted about the appeals to authority as often expressed "Trust the experts" or "Trust the science".
While I've been absolutely correct in those rants and in fully dismissing appeals to authority within unscoped debate, I don't think I've put it as succinctly as RFK does here:
Put all our faith in the technocrats. That's why this mantra of "trust the experts". Trusting the experts is not a feature of democracy, it is not a feature of science. It's a feature of religion, it's a feature of totalitarianism, but it's absolutely anathema to science and democracy.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What about the invincible armies of the people's republic of Korea?The only way to beat Trump now is to try to change him.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm looking forward to the future appeals of the fake courts.You probably haven't been following the appeal court wins lately (of course), but there is a similar refrain from the judges,"...no case precedent..."
Judges have this nasty habit of following the popular sentiment and that's not what they thought it was after 2020.
It was extremely therapeutic to listen to that appeals judge in NY basically accuse them of election interference over the "falsifying records" BS.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So if it turns out that Trump does contest an essential element of the purported crime, then what could the possible relevance of "most of which Trump is not even contesting"be?Because proving a case means proving all of the elements, so when most of the elements are there that simplifies things nicely.
Let's count those potential elements:
1.) Has classified documents
2.) Knows he has classified documents
3.) Doesn't immediately run to the national archives and stick them in the return box
Am I missing any?
....but he couldn't have done that because nobody thought it was illegal or even inappropriate until they went after Trump.Nobody thought it was illegal to lie to the FBI, obstruct their investigation,
Imaginary events.
and maintain the documents you have been warned are property of the US government and told to give back?
There is no "warning clause" in the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We are effortlessly empathetic.
That's a flex. I pity those who don't have it, including myself, and I pity more those who think they're not missing out.
Created:
Posted in:
Almost right, buy land; but don't rent out residential space.
Government treats landlords like a servant class. A tenant can screw you over for years and get away with it.
Lease light industrial and commercial space. Companies tend to be more professional and they don't have a bunch of absurd 'rights' such as "I can beat the shit out of the bathroom fixtures and you are duty bound to come fix it"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Real judges are objective and are not swayed by who is offensive to them.
When cops arrest you for giving them the finger, that's a violation of rights. Same with judges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
How is speculating about a false flag conspiracy "exploiting the misery of parents"?He wasn’t speculating. He said explicitly that it was a false flag.
Rachel Maddow said explicitly that OAN was a "paid Russian disinformation". Judge said reasonable people knew she was full of shit (speculating).
So... were these judges psuedojudges?
The "cushioned with an undisputed news story" is cute, so was what Alex Jones said.
People have a right to advance conspiracy theories about government behavior.He didn’t limit his propaganda to the government, he directly accused the parents of the slaughtered children of being crisis actors in his imaginary plot.
Directly, as in by name?
Months eh? So how about you post videos of the first and last time he speculated?Why don’t you tell me, since you seem to think a more limited timeframe a valid defense.
Well if the timeframe isn't relevant, then why mention it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Truth comes from reason and reason alone, but reason is a process.
The input to logic are statements, the output is a statement.
As a matter of epistemological fact, a man or woman can never be enlightened with statements alone, they must be able and willing to use logic on the assertions they encounter and the perceptions they experience.
One of the first conclusions logic gives those in modern times who use it is this: Don't trust an assertion just because you see it appear from many so called authoritative sources. In fact simultaneous assertion is a sign of a conspiracy to deceive rather than investigation or research.
I would say we have the media and government we deserve, but the fact is that misguided and evil people failed to educate children with philosophy; and you can't blame children who were never taught any better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol, I heard his voice; didn't sound american. Maybe he really did just believe the first thing he heard and was like "time to save the world from the racists".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I find it very weird that he explicitly fingered Biden and the garbage statement.
If somebody stabbed a black guy and said it was because Trump said "they're poisoning the blood of our country" explicitly straight to the police, I would suspect a false flag.
Is it possible that somebody bribed this guy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
See besides being pitiful this is also kind of a diagnostic.Ty UD
His theory of other minds is so broken that he doesn't understand how to fool people, and this also explains why he keeps misidentifying the relationships between opinions and worldviews.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Better than a producer.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
a whole heck of a lot of poor reasoning ability from trump supporters
*calmly plays O Fortuna*
ebuc *drum beat*
Sidewalker *drum beat*
Best.Korea *drum beat*
Underdog/Remy Brown *drum beat*
FLRW *drum beat*
HistoryBuff *drum beat*
Sure there are some simpletons on the right represented here, but I'd put left-tribe nuts against right-tribe nuts in this context and in most contexts.
I have smoking gun examples of either extraordinary stupidity or dogmatism on all those names BTW. Amber & TWS are the only right-tribers I would put in this bucket. One exception, ebuc is simply insane; not exactly dogmatism.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If it was true, the public punished those who did it.
There I must disagree strongly my dear parrot.
Nearly pulling it off, costing millions of dollars, subverting an election with disinformation, causing unwarranted emotional stress from a frivolous prosecution, all that is not resolved because the left-tribe lost an election.
If that is where the story ended they will have gotten off Scott free and there would be no deterrent for more to try. Why not try when you don't spend your own money, you don't risk your own hide?
It was basically an all expenses paid TDS adventure safari for these people and it directly attacked the foundation of our civilization.
They need to be in jail or fined 500 million dollars, preferably both. Then they will have been punished.
In either case, we probably won't see this kind of bullshit ever again from a sane party.
Again strongly disagree. We can easily see with cops that when they face no personal consequences for abusing their power they just keep doing it.
Losing their job isn't enough sometimes and they certainly don't give a shit if the government has to payout of the tax coffers to their victims.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No one piece in isolation is going to substantiate the crime.
This is a red herring aiming at a strawman.
You did the old "nobody even denies what he did" thing, an attempt to paint anyone who doubts the trumped up charges as a reality denier. We're getting to the bottom of that or we're not getting anywhere. I don't dig these holes, you pick the spot with your stubbornness.
So if it turns out that Trump does contest an essential element of the purported crime, then what could the possible relevance of "most of which Trump is not even contesting"
be?
Why did you say it if it doesn't matter?
If Donald Trump did what Joe Biden did; called the FBI and said hey I’ve got classified documents that belongs to the government here, you good should take them… we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
....but he couldn't have done that because nobody thought it was illegal or even inappropriate until they went after Trump. That's why order matters.
You won't call the FBI tomorrow and confess to the possession of socks because you can't possibly know that in three years a deranged fascist state would try to claim concealing socks from the FBI is a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Well people are different from each other.
Sometimes religion is just a communal framework. You say you aren't part of that framework and they take it personally.
Finding out that most people who claim to be christian aren't really was what laid the groundwork for my de-conversion. If you're going to believe in something it was distasteful to me to believe in a shallow and contrived way.
Of course reflecting on the strength of faith is a dangerous thing for a religious person to do, might stumble on epistemology and that's exactly what happened to me.
Anyway there are some real Christians, I've met them, and even though I'm sure they're ignorant I also have a respect for them that goes deeper than the conscious level. There is enormous dignity in living an ideal just as much if not more than you preach it. Trust me, these people would never try to hurt you.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
That literally leaves nothing to talk about but the consequences of certain policies, which would only happen to matter if both the goals and means happen to align with someone else.I'm a nihilist, 'I think 'all reasons are subjective, including cannibalism or killing.
If some bandits come to my village, and demand a single person as sacrifice every 10 years,We may lose 100 villagers fighting, but it is better than 'sacrificing one of our villagers.We 'clearly lose more villagers through the fight option,Even though part of the reason for our action is not wanting to lose someone,Part of our motivation is the 'action itself,We do not want to 'Sacrifice one of our own, even if it means 100 die, the action of them dying is different.. . . , , , Though I suppose they are sacrificing themselves in a way, they are sacrificing themselves to 'fight an outside evil,Not sacrificing themselves to 'submit to an outside evil.
Sure, but our instincts on these matters came from somewhere.
Outside the world of contrived certainties is a real landscape of probability, and in that landscape if you fail to defend one of your villagers then next time the bandits take 2 then 10, then a 100. Now you have to fight and you've lost 212 villagers instead of 100.
The moral is practical because on average exceptions to the prediction of ideal outcomes are aberrations. You don't tolerate evil not only because it is evil but also because tolerance is a slippery slope and the negative consequences sneak up on you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
The transition of "MAGA" from a lazy campaign slogan recycled from the Reagan era to a descriptor for an entire wing of the Republican Party is fascinating, because it doesn't seem to clearly stand for anything that other Republicans don't
It stands for anti-establishment republican. Or opposition to the deep state.
The only "non-MAGA" republicans are those too gullible to realize the institutions they're standing by are subverted. Not talking about Liz Cheney, she knew she was lying and conspired to suppress evidence. I mean those vanishingly few "never trumpers" or "Lincoln Project" (the ones who aren't pretending to be neo nazis with tiki torches).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Have you ever raped and beheaded any 5 year old?No.
Have you gone to the international space station and murdered one of the astronauts by tricking him into an airlock and opening it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
If someone asked me if I ever r@ped and beheaded any 5 year old, as unlikely as the answer is yes, my answer is no; I'm not scared of the truth here because, well, I've never r@ped and beheaded a 5 year old.
Have you ever raped and beheaded any 5 year old?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Underdog is RemyBrown, I'm 96% sure.What happened with Underdog? Was he banned?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
You and evidence don't have a great track record.but you have no evidence
I would say wanting to end elections 'In four years, you don't have to vote again,' Trump says | REUTERS counts as being a tyrant.
Yes but lies are false, so they don't count.
1. Am I wrong?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Have you been cured of dementia?
Have you gotten a clue?
Answer all those and I'll answer your out of the blue fallacy of complex question rhetorical diarrhea.
Answer these questions or else I will assume your answer is:1. No2. Yes
Shit, now that you made it an ultimatum that deal above is off. I'm not answering and it is precisely because it clearly feeds this kind of petulant nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Thought you said that wasn't the issue?Is there anything of relevance (to your absurd theory of the law) that he has not contested?The fact that he admits to taking the documents
Yea here:
And what makes you obtuse is the fact that you can’t get through your head that the mere possession of those documents is not the issue.
Pick a story.
Created:
Posted in:
No direct evidence in this one, but the points made are strong:
Especially around 6:36 with the bar chart and the bellwether counties which miraculously after being right for decades were all wrong in 2020 but are back to being all right in 2024.
Created:
Posted in:
I've been rediscovering how good a baked potato can be.
I honestly prefer it to french fries (or the equivalent in different shapes with herbs).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
There is no hypocrisy, democrats are the ones cheating."Trump apparently wins but TDS/Deepstate refuses to accept the popular mandate".You were that for 2020 to 2024, so it's hypocritical
Our popular vote victories are bigger than they appear, theirs are fake.
I don't care if there is a Jan 6 done against Trump (because you didn't care when there was one done against Biden).
A protest where only protestors are killed? I don't think it's going to be a problem.
Tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants.
That is true, of course figuring out who the tyrants are; leaving that exercise as homework doesn't work out in all cases.
To you though, Trump could r@pe your daughter and you would still support him.
You heard that through the grapevine?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Pornography does not seem a 'need to me, unlike public sanitation.
A great deal of what we do is not needed. The deeper in a democrat run city you are the more people are engaged in unneeded activities. The curse and the blessing of excess resources.
It isn't for your or I to determine if something is worthwhile just because it's not a public need.
It seems reasonable to me, to expect people not think highly of people who broach one's morals for seemingly carnal reason.
A person who betrays their own morals out of weak will is the definition of degenerate, but the assumption that they are doing that is not a safe assumption. If they are not ashamed and you cannot give objective reasons why they should be, then they are not degenerates.
.....
I 'Would have to put a lot of effort into arguing Prohibition being effective or not, I agree,And if it were a formal debate, I think it likely I could lose half the time.
It would depend strongly on how you define success. A movement that causes so much trouble that its primary goal is repealed and will never again make a comeback will always be a failure in some sense.
It also appears to be a failure in producing a culture that drinks less alcohol.
The only interesting contention is that it did some good in 1830 when there was clearly too many people trying to find comfort in a mug.
I would say the definition of success that has relevance is whether the net effect on society was good or bad (moral principle aside, using the presumed absolute standard of good being economically productive law-abiding citizens). Prohibition may have reduced the average alcohol consumption but it didn't eradicate it and it added a huge class of people who became comfortable with breaking the law.
The violence and loss of institutional trust was without a doubt far worse than any realistic horde of drunkards could have been.
I think the same is true of pornography and I think prostitution and recently marijuana were wrapped up in the exact same dynamic. Prostitution doesn't require pimps, illegal prostitution requires pimps. If you make porn illegal, you will be making criminals the only producers of porn and that is not good for potential porn actors.
Though in societies where bending to greater good and social norms more strongly seen as objectively good,You'd have a harder time.
Those societies would have a better time if there was a single one that didn't have a normalized 'vice' which was potentially addictive. Few cultures put more pressure on the individual to conform than Japan and yet social drinking, smoking, and pleasure districts were until recently entirely normalized.
Yet gambling was illegal for a very long time, and there again is a potentially very addictive and dangerous vice.
Given these discrepancies I must conclude that it is more normalcy bias than some kind of coherent collectivist mindset, and they would thus still lose the argument.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, and neither can they.You can choose other people's gender?
For all you know RFK is right about the food, they really are throwing off the hormones, and gender dysphoria will return to being extraordinarily rare as it was all previous human history.Really? You think food makes people trans?
It's not impossible.
Look at ancient Rome, ancient Greece, ancient Egypt. Every sexual orientation that exists today existed then but gender dysphoria did not.Really? I guess you were there to ask people, so you would know.Well, even your retarded Bible introduced death penalty for people who wear clothes only allowed for women at the time.
There are so many layers to your stupidity that it's exhausting to unravel them all.
1.) I was not there, based on what records we have (duh).
2.) I didn't write any bible, I don't endorse any bible.
3.) Every culture I specified spent most of its history unencumbered by abrahamic religion.
@FLRW add links if you want someone to give a shit.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Perfect outcome.Perfect encapsulation of Trump; a man completely incapable and uninterested in the job millions of Americans just handed him.
Oh, don't you mean he's just trusting the "experts"? ROFL!
Of course I meant perfect in that leaving it to RFK is the best thing Trump can do since he's obviously scientifically illiterate. Would I prefer a scientifically literate president? Of course I would, but the "evil liar" can't be outweighed by "scientifically literate".
Plus of all the democrat or third party candidates none with the slightest indication of scientific literacy got anywhere near nomination.
If you don't know what your plans are, neither can the enemy!Neither can the people who voted for them.
You don't vote for plans, you vote for people.
Except for the 30k he told in his first 4 years.
See, that's a lie too; case in point.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Lot of porn actors who commit suicide I hear,
Well by left-tribe logic that must mean they weren't validated enough.
I would assume they're lives are stressful or there are filters which route people on the edge of despair into the industry. Both would seem likely in this case.
One 'could argue prohibition was partially successful,I've heard that alcohol 'was a huge problem in parts of America before Prohibition,"By 1830, the average American over 15 years old consumed nearly seven gallons of pure alcohol a year – three times as much as we drink today – and alcohol abuse (primarily by men) was wreaking havoc on the lives of many, particularly in an age when women had few legal rights and were utterly dependent on their husbands for sustenance and support."
That claim would take a lot of evidence. 1830 is a long time before 1919. The most recent event of importance in 1919 was the first world war and one would presume as is often the case that there was a large influx of veterans bringing home their trauma and some culture from wherever they were at (France in this case).
This source claims that before prohibition they were drinking 2.5 gallons per year, which is less than 1981 and much closer to what we drink today than 7 gallons per year.
I 'do like junk food.People 'do often argue against easy 'access to junk food,Such as not allowing vending machines at school,
Children are and always will be different. Proper guardians will always try to keep addictions and vices away from children and they have every right to influence schools and other similar settings.
I am saying that in moderation and within the right context it's not a vice at all. Not porn, not potato chips, not alcohol, not marijuana, etc... the large majority of people who try these things do not fall into addictions and it is immoral to use force to impede those people from using them. It is immoral to use force to impede people who are detrimental to themselves.
Therefore, since the stick in this case is unjustifiable, the carrot is all that remains and we needed that carrot anyway. People need to want something worthwhile bad enough to be afraid of becoming addicted and resentful of an ongoing addiction.
Heh, I don't think schools have porn vending machines though.
Don't give them any ideas. They already insist on porn in the libraries.
Created: