Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Mall
You're not objectively wrong.
Sometimes things bother us and it's very hard to change even if it's technically irrational. There are thin plastic seals on food containers sometimes have a film of the food substance (like yogurt) and people take off this film and just lay it somewhere or worse leave it on the container under the lid. That drives me nuts. Like full blown OCD I have to throw it in the trash instantly.
I try to not make it other people's problem, but it's hard to not ask them to stop. Maybe your comfort is worth more than something they didn't even think about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
They also believe in a thing called systematic racism. They're not in the position to complain about nebulous definitions.
In simple terms we're just talking about the agenda and cooperation of some basic interests groups which (by their own desire) are not perceived as being major political forces.
The interests are:
Public Corruption - Stealing money via taxes and inflation, laundering through government contracts, routed into the pockets of people who then have a vested interest in continuing the trajectory that made them rich. Not at all hard to understand or even that new, but the scale of the problem has become immense. These people were the original players of both sides, their public face is capitalistic, but a "capitalist" who gets his money from government theft is a bit like a christian who thinks jesus may not have actually existed.
Total domination of the world - cliche isn't it? But it's become clear there are people who actually want this and they think they're perfectly entitled to do so regardless of whether the culture and laws they're rotting from within is truly superior and liberating for all humanity. They've been called war hawks and hard liners but that's all rather tame compared to the way they really think. They don't go to war just for honor or oil. Those are goals everyone in a nation might actually agree with. They manufacture wars to justify maintaining the war machine and to keep the message current and loud: Don't fuck with us, we're the boss.
These two have had many names and one of the more recent is "military industrial complex", it also describes the structures in fascist Italy and nazi Germany before the war rather well.
The third interest is globalists, there are those who think the nation-state is the root of all our problems and giant bureaucracies are the solution. They're futurists and often climate catastrophe lunatics. These kind of people revel in things like Covid-19 as they revel in anything that justifies centralizing regulatory power to international and undemocratic institutions.
Since they are catastrophists and globalists they often believe there are too many humans and are perfectly content with negative growth rates.
==========================================================================================================
The first two are essentially secret, and they form the heart of the deep state; nobody admits to supporting them but unelected positions are easily filled with people supporting those agendas and elected positions are easily corrupted by puppeting campaigns or officials before or after being elected.
The genius of the modern military industrial complex is the inclusion of globalists as semi-pawns and the inclusion of social-justice-politics as their opium of the masses. Well it's not opium so much as LSD.
You could say the military industrial complex was dealt a blow by the end of the cold war, they evolved (like a pokemon) into the global deep state.
Created:
Posted in:
The longer Trump is relevant the more desperate the deep state gets. The more desperate the deep state gets the more they expose themselves. The more they expose themselves the more people believe they exist.
The more people that believe the deep state exist, the more people resist.
That is the cure and the justification for voting for anyone or anything the deep state finds unacceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
There should be a legal definition and a moral definition.
The legal definition would be illegal killing
The moral definition would be immoral killing
The law is always an imperfect implementation of a potentially imperfect moral theory. Those who understand this have no trouble distinguishing when to use which definition.
Having only a legal definition would necessarily constrain the concept to the context of place and time (for every government). Anyone who believes that would be unable to say the nazis murdered jews if the nazis made killing jews lawful killing (which they didn't in a super official way but they would have if they needed to)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But they could escape, so I'd rather kill murderers and rapists in the name of fiscal conservatism.
All fun and games till they accuse you of rape. Then you might think that it would be good if they would keep you alive so evidence or appeals might release you some day.
maybe exileTo where? Canada? Then Treadeau can say, "When America sends it's people, they aren't sending their best (you know the rest)."
Doesn't bother the Mexicans and it wouldn't bother us.
People shouldn't be free of their own promises.Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
That morally depends on whether you made a promise.
You wouldn't like it if your wife forcibly sucked your dick so hard that she bit it off. Consent matters.
There is a considerable margin of safety between sucking and castration, regardless I wouldn't have to withdraw consent to have my dick bitten off because I would never give it.
But what if the camera gets destroyed by the rapist? Then your evidence is gone.
Well you can and should have it transmit live to a secure server but think about the truth table compared to the paper.
So you sign the paper and then the rapist is like "muwhahhaha now I can do whatever I want to you".
Or you don't trust the rapist so you don't sign the paper but he/she rapes you anyway (because he/she is obviously in control of the situation if cameras can be destroyed at will), what's your evidence of the rape? In your scenario sex without the paper is illegal, so all you have to do is go to the police, get the rape kit; and voila the rapist is charged with being nasty without the proper paperwork.
Well just replace the paper with the recording. If the rapist destroys the recording, and you are legally required to have a recording, it works the same way. Sex without a recording? Bang jail!
It's still a terrible idea to make it mandatory. Anything both mandatory and private will just not be followed. It's not like any part of this is bullet proof.
Rapist don't only attack at the time and place where you're expecting to have sex. The easiest way to not be recorded is to not attack your victim in front of a camera. You can avoid leaving behind a bunch of DNA with condoms and gloves. You can prevent reports to the police with murder.
Just like someone can claim that they withdrew consent after signing the paper, they can claim there was rape after the sex on the recording.
The only way to have absolutely verified consensual sex is in a controlled environment like some futurist brothel where everything is recorded from entry to exit. Now that people would find creepy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
rofl, this is why maybe it's worth it to be on this site from time to time. Abnormal mentalities interact in such 'interesting' ways. Straight monkey murder-rape, which I guess is also necrophilia if you intended to suggest that order.That's 'Murica! The freedom to have butt sex with monkeys if you want too.
Afraid not, that along with being able to build a house without begging permission and copying mega-developers is not legal.
Jeez you are bringing up death a lot.Hey man; we can't have prisoners getting free healthcare. Seems kindof socialist, don't you think?
I think we could look into having them work or maybe exile before going straight to executions.
but if one were to actually sit down and game it out I'm sure lack of sex would be an exit condition.If you want to divorce, it's a free country.
People shouldn't be free of their own promises.
but if one were to actually sit down and game it out I'm sure lack of sex would be an exit condition.If you want to divorce, it's a free country.
So you'd force them to sign or else sex is illegal. Now I'm seeing why there was some opposition.
Now I have a few times suggested using ring encryption to solve the problem of record keeping without sacrificing privacy. Basically you record everything with video and audio, the data is encrypted in such a way that it takes two of three keys to access:Key 1: Participant AKey 2: Participant BKey 3: A judicial authoritySo basically, a camera on a ring?
Uh, "on a ring" no? The camera can be where ever. It would have to be a special kind of camera of course.
I thought people would find that creepy.
They might, but it would be objectively not a privacy problem so people could get used to it.
I mean compared to you trying to force people to sign forms it's a lot more likely to catch on.
If it was a lanyard encryption (rings hurt my fingers and cost thousands of dollars; I prefer the lanyard), I would like that.
You say these things that make me wonder if I'm talking to a machine or a non-native English speaker. "ring encryption". It's a strategy for encrypting information that takes multiple keys (passwords) to unlock. It has nothing to do with lanyards or finger rings.
P.S. I wasn't using quite the right word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_cryptosystem is the precise phrase.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Inference, which is indirect observation. Of course within the right scope all quantum observations are also indirect.
So if trees didn't fall when we didn't see them, then there wouldn't be pete bogs, logs wouldn't block paths, the only logs we would ever see would be ones we'd seen fall.
So you got to postulate some kind of magic where the mechanics of the tree know when someone will observe the effects in the future.
Nobody would take someone seriously if they claimed this about trees, but because very few people understand quantum mechanics it's easier to claim that kind of thing.
So with the cat, you could keep slapping on secondary causalities till the cows come on. If they're willing to claim an entire cat with trillions of cells and pentillions of atoms is in a superposition there is nothing they won't claim is in superposition.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@WyIted
[WyIted] Not to mention not all sexual partners have opposable thumbs so it's actually discriminatory to require consent forms.
Look whose back. Now remember those pills are for your own good.
[WyIted] Not to mention not all sexual partners have opposable thumbs so it's actually discriminatory to require consent forms.[TheUnderdog] How? Do you have sex with monkeys? If so, then monkeys don't deserve the same rights as humans. I don't think it should be a felony to kill and rape a monkey.
rofl, this is why maybe it's worth it to be on this site from time to time. Abnormal mentalities interact in such 'interesting' ways. Straight monkey murder-rape, which I guess is also necrophilia if you intended to suggest that order.
[ADOL] I would say that anybody you fear enough to want a form out of shouldn't be someone you engage in intimate relations with[TheUnderdog] If that's the case, then you are talking about trusting someone with my life, where they can turn me in to the cops claiming I raped them (with DNA "evidence").
No, you're right. That kind of trust is possible, but it's a pretty high bar to pass just to have sex or even get married so I see your point.
[ADOL] but I've also said marriage contracts should be explicit and legally binding[TheUnderdog] Marital rape shouldn't be legal and it should be punishable with death.
Jeez you are bringing up death a lot. Testosterone supplements aren't always the answer you know.
I was referring to fidelity among other things, but if one were to actually sit down and game it out I'm sure lack of sex would be an exit condition.
[ADOL] It would have to be a little more complicated than you describe to be actually useful.[TheUnderdog] How so?
Well to craft useful legal structures (contracts and laws) you need to game out the different kinds of actors (game theory). This is something people who want to ban guns really fail to do.
There are plenty of people who want to have sex but there are finite number contexts where a rape might occur. In the worst case it's premeditated and carefully planned. It's often followed by murder to eliminate witnesses (singular in this case). If these consent forms are taken seriously by courts they become a new way to commit rape that doesn't require murder afterward, which might actually be a benefit overall.
Best.Korea had an unusually insightful question that cuts to the heart of the matter. If you sign the form, can you say no? Because after you sign the form you're essentially going to have no chance to convince a rational jury. Now it's hardly a slam dunk without a form, it's probably still he said/she said, but in order to catch on it's got to give assurances to both parties.
A man almost certainly already has a huge physical advantage and society will side against him at the drop of a hat (because of his strength and also because it's undeniable that men are much more rapey than women). The form is a big advantage for a man be his intentions good or ill. Why would a woman sign? If you think it's to get the man she wants, maybe but she doesn't need it just to have sex with a man. Rule #1 of reproduction on Earth since the Cambrian has been that there is always a male willing to take the risk.
Now I have a few times suggested using ring encryption to solve the problem of record keeping without sacrificing privacy. Basically you record everything with video and audio, the data is encrypted in such a way that it takes two of three keys to access:
Key 1: Participant A
Key 2: Participant B
Key 3: A judicial authority
I guess you would need more keys if it's an orgy but the point would be that nobody could distribute the recording without either the consent of everyone involved or the consent of one person and a judge, the judge would presumably be reviewing it and it could be used in court if there is merit to the claim of rape or misconduct.
This solves the withdrawn consent problem and therefore gives women a motivator for agreeing to this, after all unlike the form this would actually discourage rape.
It also bypasses a host of other problems with paper forms such as the fact that if you give someone a form once they can try to duplicate your signature or copy it with different dates. Those things aren't as hard to fake as you might think. In fact it opens the door to completely fabricated forms for people who never once consented.
I don't want to give anybody any power over me if they decide to put me in jail over a rape charge that was consensual sex.
It's more of a rich and/or orange person problem, but again I see your point and I don't know how much it is factoring into these younger generations decision making. My generation had plenty of sex at a young age and nobody was really afraid of that, but things change. I can see the culture becoming twisted and neurotic. It's possible people are more willing to rape and more willing to lie (or delude themselves). I mean I saw a rape statistic that included a young man misreading cues and trying to kiss. There are definitely people with agendas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would say that anybody you fear enough to want a form out of shouldn't be someone you engage in intimate relations with, but I've also said marriage contracts should be explicit and legally binding. If there is trust then being held to it wouldn't be a problem.
It would have to be a little more complicated than you describe to be actually useful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You haven't met kids these days. They already have their own screen at all times. They wouldn't downgrade to a center console.It's for the kids so they don’t get bored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Question 1: Did no one in the entire auto manufacturing industry world wide ever stand back and say "That is the most ugly ass car accessory ever thought of by the human mind"?
Styles change. I think cars from the 70s look wretched but the 40s/50s 'futurism' looks pretty cool.
Question 2: How can looking at this and scrolling thru menus while driving be legal but looking at a cell phone not be legal, there is no difference?
Sometimes they lock features while driving. In theory if you can identify the control you want in your peripheral vision you can press it without loosing awareness of your surroundings as opposed to a phone which has small text and requires your iris to change focus.
... but irresponsible people can crash anything if they want to and the cell phone laws are obeyed about as much as the speed limit.
My objection to doing the entire control system digitally is that these people suck as software. Every car I've ever seen has had a disappointing computer system. It's slower than it should be, clunky UI, has tons of hidden diagnostic data that should absolutely be available, complete lack of API or OS behavior.
Over half of the problems I've ever had with trucks and cars have been a sensor error followed by a computer overreaction, and if the software had been written correctly it would have known the sensor data was outside of physical possibilities and thus indicated a bad sensor.
It's the worst of all worlds. Lack the reliability of mechanical or analog electrical control systems, still too crappy to have interesting things like installing custom software.
But I haven't bought a vehicle in a while. Maybe it's better now (doubt it).
I really like the idea of the cybertruck. Electric pickup and stainless steel structural body, but I think it was a total failure to follow through and think about what people actually need out of a vehicle like that. It's basically an ultra expensive off-road->camp thing which isn't even specialized for that.
We need a full size bed, we need to actually be able to use all that power for towing, and we needed a sit-in-bed diesel generator module in case of range or power issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
We know that in all instances before birth, a fetus has NO personhood.
How?
You said: "You cannot draw a line in the sand where on one side you have no personhood but on the other side you have full pershood."
Doesn't seem like something susceptible to precise quantification.
since we cannot draw a line in the sand and say at this age personhood is aquired
Why?
But we definately know that it occurs after birth in all cases.
Again, how?
Created:
Posted in:
What he said at 1:20 "There seems to be a cure for Trump Derangement Syndrome"
Side effects include bringing your nation to the brink of collapse and may not work in all cases, ask your doctor about: Having no fucking money because everything is too damn expensive
Note: I am not legally allowed to criticize the government because that's what nazis do isn't it. Those freaking anarchists hate state authority. Anyway I need to remind you this is anecdotal and Bidenomics is an amazing success (number go up = good - Colbert)
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You have brought peace and security to your new empire?Yes.
Did you change your avatar for that?
How about you retract your slanderous lies against GP and myself.I retract all my lies about GP and you.
Thank you.
Created:
Now we can have peace.
You have brought peace and security to your new empire?
How about you retract your slanderous lies against GP and myself. Let me know if you need to see the list again.
Created:
Do you think that your contempt affects me somehow?
I think it does, but I would express it even if it didn't.
Personally, I have been insulted many times in life, but it never occured to me to go around copy pasting about it.
It also apparently didn't occur to you to not lie about others in the desperate need to insult them.
Created:
And you assume your contempt affects me somehow?
You give your opinions, do you think they affect others somehow?
Its like you are angry at me for some reason.
I guess it will just take a bigger brain than you've got to figure it out. Not like it has been (and will continue to be) pasted all over the place.
Created:
@ADreamOfLibertyDont defend greyparrot.
I'm not defending greyparrot I'm expressing my contempt for you.
If he cant defend himself or his arguments, then really, he wont profit from you helping him all the time.
Worry about yourself. You owe a lot money for defamation after all ;)
He needs to learn to do it on his own, and he cant do that if you wont let him do that.
He will only waste his time trying to talk to you, not that I'm stopping him from trying.
Created:
[Best.Korea] I dont even need to say it takes a really weak mind to have as much inconsistency as yours is able to produce.
I don't need to say that someone who participates in vicious slander because he can't win an argument isn't in the position to mentor.
Note the "participates", said person doesn't even have the originality to expose himself as an intellectual toddler with his own fallacies, rather all he can manage is to parrot an intellectual toddler like a lobotomized valley girl.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Am I supposed to join you in conversation where you complain about how you cant tell other people what to do with their bodies?Your argument is dead.
That was a pearl clutching excuse to not argue, not an argument. DOA I guess.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Not so with quantum entanglement i.e the cat is both alive { 1 } and dead { 0 }.
What experiment could prove what you just claimed?
A general reminder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Suicide and to stop breathing is one in the same. You can't have one without the other.
You can't stop breathing as a purely voluntary action. If someone could somehow fight their instincts for long enough to pass out they would simply start breathing again. That is all I meant.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
n8nrgim] doesn't it require actual measurement to affect quantum phenomenon? im not seeing where just observation is sufficient.Interaction. Measurement also implies someone is watching. A photon can interact with a single atom. Atoms have no mindwhen measurement occurs, observation is only incidental to what's happening. the act of observing itself doesn't change the outcome of the quantum world, does it?
When interaction occurs observation is incidental and measurement is a form of observation.
Observation is the perception of a fact by a mind (or sometimes automated information store like a computer).
The wave collapse is the fact.
The mechanics of wave collapse and the things the transferred properties (like energy and momentum) do not change one bit depending on whether they are perceived. The existence of a conscious mind (or a computer) is totally irrelevant to the predictions of quantum mechanics. There is no term in any equation for conscious awareness. There is no machine you can build that behaves differently when it's being watched (excluding computers designed to recognize human observation but that's not a quantum effect is it).
it looks like you are disagreeing or distinguishing with me, if i'm not mistaken, but i think we agree.
I think you understand but I'm being extremely nit-picky about semantics because I can see, especially in this context, that using the wrong words snowballs into bizarre and substantially false understanding. I wish they had been as careful at the Copenhagen conference and we would have less people a confused as Sidewinder.
if a tree lands in a forest and no one is around, it still we assume did what it did in reality. if we measure it falling with a video, our observation of it falling didn't change anything.
Exactly.
We know it fell, but that's information. If we didn't record it, it would still fall and then it would still decompose and be a habitat for beetles etc... etc...
If we're finally talking in the same terms we can move on to Schrodinger's cat which is the classic argument against the misconception Sidewinder was just spreading.
Many people think Schrodinger's cat is a description of the bizarre reality of quantum mechanics but in fact it was a thought experiment (make by Schrodinger) to show the absurdity of believing wave collapse is being caused by observation as opposed to interaction.
The question is not different from a tree in the forest. It simply describes a scenario where a macroscopic outcome is determined by a quantum collapse with equal probability of having one outcome or the other.
The question is: If a EM wave collapses to a photon on one side or the other of a double slit experiment, and no one looks in the box, is the cat both dead and alive at the same time?
The answer is: The cat is either dead or alive. There was a 50/50 chance the photon would manifest in a way that would cause the cat to die and that dice was rolled the instant the quantum wave hit the detector, not when you opened the box.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
what do you think of sidewalker's take?
[Sidewalker] Quantum Physics, the Copenhagen interpretation, the particle actually comes into being physically when it is observed.
That's not everything in the Copenhagen interpretation but it is correct if you substitute "it is observed" with "wave collapse/interaction occurs"
[Sidewalker] Because of the dual nature of reality at the quantum level
Mysticism
[Sidewalker] particles can be “completely” represented mathematically by a “wave function”, this is a central tenet of quantum physics.
Yes, keeping in mind you're talking about the properties (essence) that manifest on wave collapse in discreet quanta, remember he just said there are no particles in the wave only on collapse.
[Sidewalker] In quantum theory, a particle exists in a juxtaposition of possible states; only when it is measured does it take on definite qualities, like position and momentum.
The part of the Copenhagen interpretation that confuses people and contradicts itself. "We" just said there is no particle except at the instant of collapse. That is correct. This is not.
[Sidewalker] These are not waves of some underlying stuff
Whatever this is supposed to mean precisely it's probably wrong. The waves involved all satisfy Schrodinger's equation but many were identified long before as waves of force-fields, the most commonly studied (and relevant for most science) are electromagnetic waves.
[Sidewalker] they are mathematical waves of probability
They are both.
[Sidewalker] a field of pure possibility that goes unrealized until it is “collapsed” by an observer, theoretically then, the act of observing seems to conjure the particle into existence out of a mathematical haze of probability.
That's what the first statement said, but the unwarranted flowery and misleading language is continuing to snowball.
"observation" can be done by a single atom. That's not what people think intuitively when you say "observation". Again (I'm really a broken record) "interaction" is a better word.
I say "manifest", he says "conjure". Whatever makes you happy.
"out of a mathematical haze of probability"
Math describes nature, nature isn't math. This stretches poetic license.
[Sidewalker] The “bigger implication” is not that “our consciousness can affect reality”, it is consciousness actually brings about reality, the particle can be “actualized,” or made “real” by the observation that collapses the wave function, which gives it spatial and temporal existence.
We've now crossed over fully into mysticism with no admixture of scientific theory supported by evidence.
[Sidewalker] The mind-boggling implication is that the objective world cannot even be said to exist outside of the subjective act of observation.
<monty python peasant voice>Now you see what I've been on about, did you see him try to deny objective reality?</monty python peasant voice>
[Sidewalker] This enforces the age-old hypothesis that consciousness is fundamental aspect of physical reality after all, perhaps the only ultimate reality.
It does not. If consciousness creates reality there is no way we can support that conclusion by the fact that physical quanta manifest during quantum wave collapse whether we know about the collapse or not.
It's a thing that happens. End of story. This the makes exactly as much sense as saying "Since color only exists when I see it we know consciousness is a fundamental aspect of physical reality after all"
[Sidewalker]As Neils Bohr, John Wheeler, Henry Stapp, and many other quantum physicists believed, perhaps consciousness cannot be considered just a by-product of the physical activity of the brain.
Many people believe that. No one who understands quantum mechanics thinks quantum mechanics supports this thesis.
[Sidewalker]In the end, we have some scientists trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and others trying to reduce consciousness to matter, we seem to be caught in one big loop.
I would suggest trying to actually understand it by looking at the math and experiments as opposed to watching pseudoscience docuseries.
[Sidewalker]I always enjoy seeing our spiritual detractors throw a conniption
I hope Sidewalker is entertained by my conniption. I am less amused by this subversion of the scientific method (and the respect it has earned) to serve anti-rationalism.
[Sidewalker] if you do think consciousness is fundamental to the existence of physical reality, this raises the possibility that some sort of consciousness was necessary to make the universe actual in the first place, a preexistent consciousness that transcends the material universe of science.
Well Sidewalker has hit the nail on the head here. Reason is so much easier to leave behind when you have a belief that you've already decided to have faith in.
=================================================
[n8nrgim] doesn't it require actual measurement to affect quantum phenomenon? im not seeing where just observation is sufficient.
Interaction. Measurement also implies someone is watching. A photon can interact with a single atom. Atoms have no mind. They don't observe. They don't measure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Do you think it's wrong for a suffering dog or person to continue breathing?
The choice there is whether to commit suicide, not really to cease breathing.
It's not wrong to choose to continue living in suffering. We all do to some degree.
For a dog, we have here an example of where their inability to manipulate abstract concepts as well as humans would limit their choices compared to a human. I am not sure they know they can kill themselves. However this is a nearly impossible subject to study since so very few living beings try to kill themselves, that instinctual framework and all.
I have seen the claim made that dolphins have been observed committing suicide. Again, hard to prove; but better evidence than a dog ever doing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As I stated, a dog will respond instinctively relative to it's circumstances.
...but not purely instinctively, like humans.
As it stands this is a somewhat daft statement.
It has been explained. I'll try in fewer words:
If morals are values abstracted and logically inferred, then one could argue that only humans have the abstraction required to perceive morals.
It is not rational to claim that humans are the only beings with values more complicated than mechanistic instinct. If we can perceive their values, we can infer the morality appropriate to them regardless of whether they can. Furthermore they have some capacity for abstraction, so rather than an absolute it would almost certainly be more accurate to say they are capable of only the least abstract morals.
You appeared to be implying that since humans philosophize, dogs can't be conscious of their own values. This does not follow. There is no inferential relationship. It's a non-sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And a dog may not be trained at all, and still be aggressive or non-aggressive.So similarly, a dog can be trained to be either aggressive or non-aggressive. But the dog will never learn the definition of right and wrong relative to it's behaviour.
Whereas a person can be trained either voluntarily or involuntarily, and at all times consider and understand the rationale of the exchange.
What humans can do has nothing to do with what dogs can't do.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
The social justice warriors and technocrats want to be called liberal, so let them have it.
You give a centimeter, they take a kilometer. You'll end up calling yourself a fascist if you let them pick labels.
Created:
Doesn't affect my view of her credibilityWhen did conservatives start admiring people who defect to Russia?
I didn't say I admired her.
I don't describe myself as a conservative. I'm a liberal (natural meaning, not subverted).
I do admire some people who went to Russia to be safe from the global deep state. For example Ed Snowden.
When they became MAGA MORONS probably
Only morons distrust the state right? I bet you feel safe with Big Brother watching over you.
Created:
You MAGA MORONS are all linked to communists.
Right out of a McCarthy hearing. Are communists left wing? Are democrats? Guilt by association? The parties don't matter. The spirit of the deep state can be discerned by action.
There are always suckers that believe what they're told, who don't know history, who repeat it.
You’re so dumb you probably didn’t know Reade defected to Russia.
I knew. Doesn't affect my view of her credibility. Cynically she went where people wanted to hear what she had to say. Kinda like EJC going on all those lefty talkshows. More realistically: Did she not feel safe in the US?
Hey I wonder if she can sue Biden from Russia. I bet Double_R will have the utmost respect for the rule of law regardless. He wouldn't dare question the safest and most secure elections over there. Only people who want to destroy democracy question elections you know.
Just know that most American citizens do want to be friends and hope that we can have unity again
Dastardly. How dare she speak for most Americans. I for one want to bathe in Russian blood every day. If Russians aren't dying then how can they justify stealing money from me and using it to build a ton of weapons instead of helping the swarms of homeless Americans?
My god if they help the homeless they would be completely out of excuses to steal half of everything! *shivers in horror*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
After birth they start accumulating personhood.
It takes over a year to develop the first signs of moral behavior.
Why not apply human rights at 1 year old or 2 years old if you don't believe dogs are people? (they have similar intelligence as a 2 year old they say)
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This game you're playing of singling out statements and evaluating them as if they occurred in isolation is not how the law works, it's not how logic and reason works.If instances add linearly then that is exactly how logic works. If the function is exponential but every element in the array is zero, the result is still zero. If you are claiming that the output depends on a series of necessary but not sufficient conditions you need to justify their chain causality.Meaningless drivel. There is no zero element here
A statement that is not defamation is the zero value. We have an array of statements that are not individually defamatory. You claim that they somehow combine into a defamation.
You have to explain how a series of not-defamation becomes defamation.
Contrast this to larceny. There is a crime of grand larceny. There is theft, and petty theft. The difference between these is quantitative. When you steal a little bit often a series of petty thefts can turn into one big charge of theft.
There is no way the sum of a non-thefts can become a big-theft (or any kind of theft).
You have to have a theory of defamation that somehow factors in repetition but doesn't require any individually defamatory statements. Then you need to support that theory with precedent if you're claiming that 200 years of jurisprudence hasn't just been ignored.
The second is where your problem is. No, you are not creating a public controversy with a tweet that no one has read. In order for it to be a controversy there has to be animated dispute, and in order for that to be public it needs to be felt buy a significant number of people in the community. English 101.
Dismissed. A book is still published even if it's not popular. A broadcast is still public if no one tunes in.
So the false defamation claims are dismissed quickly provided you have a real judge instead of a TDS pseudo-judge.Real judge (noun): a judge that ADOL agrees with.
A judge that doesn't brazenly violate their oath.
TDS Pseudo-Judge (noun): a judge that rules against Donald Trump
A pretender judge that takes an oath to honestly and consistently interpret laws including the US and state constitutions and blatantly and objectively violates that oath.
Curious to know what your position will be when the 6-3 conservative SCOTUS with 3 of the justices appointed by Trump himself reject every argumentt you made here.
Any US court that suggests:
1: Denying a crime or attacking the credibility of witnesses against you is susceptible to defamation liability
2: Making remarks on matters of public interest are susceptible to defamation liability
3: Making statements of opinion or insults are susceptible to defamation liability
Have violated the US constitution and thus their oath. (1) is a violation of the rights of the accused (6th amendment). (2) and (3) are violations of the 1st amendment. As I stated above any judge who so brazenly violates their oath has lost the right to the title and should be referred to as a pseudo-judge (or worse).
This is also consistent with the left-tribe reinterpretation of the 14th amendment which (according to them) means that anyone who attempts to impede an official proceeding or fails to to stop those impeding an official proceeding, or gives aid and comfort to those impeding an official proceeding by suggesting they were anything but nazis cannot serve in an official capacity. No legal process is required for this to take affect, one need merely perceive it to be so and the insurrectionist is no longer an officer of the United States (or any state government either).
They tell me this is what upholding the rule of law looks like. Don't you agree Double R?
Now I have no idea why you think a state defamation case is going to the US supreme court any time soon, but I wanted to make it clear that I don't care who says the sun god demands human sacrifice. I don't care who appointed them or what labels you apply to them. They're nuts. To accept their corruption of the US (and state) constitutions and the laws thereof is to reject those constitutions and laws. The pomp and protocol of appointment mean something, but they do not transcend the original authority which is itself of questionable moral foundation to begin with.
In other words if you took a bunch of nazis and dressed them up as US judges, and they declared that jews weren't persons under the meaning of the US constitution, they are pseudo-judges. If they declared that pure aryans brownshirts need not be arrested for rioting, or merely refused to stop them after swearing an oath to uphold the rule of law they are pseudo-prosecutors/police. Such villains are a threat to the rule of law no matter what aura of authority and office they claim to have secured. Somebody needs to shoot them.
Somewhere between that and the jurisprudence of the last couple centuries lies what is going on right now, as described by Alan Dershowitz as "Get Trump" (and of course also applies to his most ardent supporters such as Jan 6 rioters/protestors). You can believe it's all justified and if you find some honesty you could try to make an argument to that affect, but what will always fall on deaf ears is the claim that unlimited loyalty and obedience is owed to the state regardless of how many parts of the law and constitution have been ignored or unequally applied.
Nothing you could ever say will convince me that you feel such blind loyalty to institution over substance. I know left-tribers in general don't they cheered when elements of the government defied Trumps presidential orders because they thought it was up to them to decide what was constitutional and what wasn't. More than a few suggested secession.
You pretend to that loyalty only now because it serves your agenda. When the regalia is seized and used for purposes you find unconstitutional and unlawful you will change your tune. I on the other hand will never have pretended that the issue of constitutionality and objective legality could be sidestepped in favor of blind obedience to the assertions of others. If Trump stacks the supreme court with people who say his son can inherit the presidency, their robes and the fact that they were appointed in emulation of a true constitutional process mean nothing to me, just as it would mean nothing to you.
He didn't just deny it, and you cannot sperate the popularity of the sentiment of his denial with the sentiment of his defamatory comments
Well if anybody ever suggests defamatory comments we'll see if separation is required.
You are trying really hard to unscramble that egg.
You are trying really hard to scramble it. You insist there is yolk. Looks white to me.
I am eager to see you list the statements you are claiming are defamatory.They were listed in the ruling, and you already posted them.
Well after filtering out these non-defamatory statements:
1) Assertions of innnocence
2) Arguments to innocence
3) Comments on matters of public interest
4) Statement of opinion
5) Insults and belittlment
There was nothing left. So you're going to have to be more specific.
And if any of the previous 44 president's had ever taken home documents they were not supposed to and were told by the government to give them back, none of them would have been stupid enough to tell them to fuck off.
They weren't because no government bureaucrat would have dared fuck with a president. Brave new world where the elected guy is the bad guy and the unelected spy-masters are the real heroes.
Why is this so difficult for you? Why do you keep pretending that the government is charging Trump with something they are not while defending him by asserting something that is completely irrelevant to the case?
It's not difficult at all. The equivalence is in the the asserted equality of impropriety while the asymmetry is that only one party was attacked.
Biden didn't argue the documents were his (well he was never POTUS, but say Obama gave them to him) because nobody ever asked for them. It rings quite hollow to say "they're not equivalent because we didn't care if Biden has unauthorized documents".
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How is it the same? Tara Reade remembers the dates....We also have footage in 2023-2024 of Biden inappropriately touching many females.
Well I'm smoothing out all the ridiculous layers of supposed credibility or incredibility to the base fact of a very old accusation with no corroborating evidence.
Biden is always sniffing people's hair and Trump says women will let celebrities grab em by the pussy.
If we were in a sane world people would agree that as weird as it is hair sniffing is, it is not a history of sexual assault and locker room brags tend to be exaggerations. People would also note that "and they'll let you do it" would indicate consent as opposed to sexual assault or even rape.
Tara Reade is by far a more convincing accusation for the reason you stated. She also has more contemporary validation that she claimed things at the time. Also I haven't seen her make light of rape. Or making jokes about being paid to have sex with Joe Biden. Or praising a show hosted by Joe Biden. Nor was there a Law and Order episode with the exact scenario Tara Reade describes shortly before the accusation.
Created:
What does it say about you that you call Trump a rapist but not Biden when the exact same evidence stands against Biden?[IWRA] What does it say about religious people if they will vote for an immoral man to be President?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Have you stopped eating babies yet?
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I suppose it's debatable if her posting her rape allegation in a book would make her a public figure also, but honestly, I don't know the laws on that.
There are no laws on that, just inference from precedent. There is plenty of precedent that would tell us if Trump could sue EJC for accusing him of rape in a book. Almost nothing about whether you can accuse someone of a serious crime and then sue them when they deny it. As far as I can tell no court in all history has been deranged enough to entertain such a notion.
No law guides mention those petty dismissals thinking that nothing so absurd is interesting enough to study.
It doesn't matter though because Double R asserts that Trump had actual malice which would mean he could be sued even if EJC was a public figure.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
you can't pretend you're defending the rule of law when the only outcome you are willing to recognize as legally legitimate is the one you personally approve of.
Two sets, one wider and encompassing:
A: All outcomes I personally disapprove of.
B: All outcomes which contradict all precedent, hundreds of years of jurisprudence, won't be applied to anyone but enemies of the state, violate the constitution, and imply a society completely locked down by censorship as long as you can find 4 people to agree with the censorship anywhere, require a state of dangerous delusion to support, and are aimed at chilling opposition to the state.
All B are within A, but not all A are B.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This game you're playing of singling out statements and evaluating them as if they occurred in isolation is not how the law works, it's not how logic and reason works.
If instances add linearly then that is exactly how logic works. If the function is exponential but every element in the array is zero, the result is still zero. If you are claiming that the output depends on a series of necessary but not sufficient conditions you need to justify their chain causality.
Communication involves context. You need the full picture in order to understand what message has been conveyed. You can disagree with that all you want, the rest of the world will continue to understand it, and I think, so will you in any other situation in real life.
"bla bla bla" = "I shouldn't have to explain because I can't explain"
We have a legal process to determine that.
Sure, until the right-tribe starts playing the game. Then you'll start complaining about prejudiced juries and stacked courts.
These are all basic facts. I'm sorry if they are too difficult for you to grasp.
So kind of you to feel sorry for me lol
You should care if my point is true, because if so that means it is by definition, not a public controversy.
"public" is not qualified by readership but by the involvement of people and matters of public interest and the act of publishing.
If a tweet has one reader, it is still public and if it creates a controversy when discovered by the public (regardless of who may have drawn eyes to it) it is a public controversy.
If I tweet that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden gang raped me, I just created a public controversy even if nobody ever reads it. In fact I don't even have to be the supposed victim. If I said Joe Biden and Hunter Biden gang raped somebody else it's still a public controversy and I am still a prominent figure in that controversy as the originator of the published claim. Joe and Hunter would have every right to call me a liar. In fact private citizens with no involvement or notoriety would also have the right to call me a liar. Even if 4 West Virginians said my claim was true (based on my word).
What's nuts is to live in a country where people are sued for defamation all the time and still claim that the 1st amendment of our constitution protects one from being sued for defamation.
Nothing protects you from getting sued, but it does limit the scope of what can be defamation. So the false defamation claims are dismissed quickly provided you have a real judge instead of a TDS pseudo-judge.
Apparently every lawyer
Legal Eagle isn't "every lawyer"
You want some counter examples? Trumps Lawyer. Alan Dershowitz. Robert Gouveia.
every constitutional scholar through our 200+ year history all got it wrong
I could recall all the debates you've lost on appeals to authority, but in this case I don't have to. You're just spittin delusions. That's why you can't find any precedents.
In your ridiculous world public figures have to wait for the accusation of a heinous crime to circle the world three times before denying it.Strawman as usual. Not only have I never asserted or argued that he has no right to deny it, I have explained repeatedly that he does. Learn to read.
Great, then it doesn't matter how popular the accusation is does it.
You believe anyone who contradicts a jury must be acting with actual malice because they are contradicting an established fact.Yet anther strawman. *Yawn*
If that's a strawman that you are not asserting that contradicting a jury proves malice. Noted as exhibit (B).
Exhibit (A) is you saying "and the case is not about whether he called her a liar.
So he has a right to deny accusations. The issue is not calling her a liar. Contradicting a jury finding of fact does not prove actual malice.
I am eager to see you list the statements you are claiming are defamatory.
Nothing about anything I've said suggests there is significant overlap between these two groups of people
You said "everyone" knows Trump is a sexual predator. If "everyone" knew then there wouldn't be a group of people who didn't know.
Biden returned the missing two mints without being asked, the waiters had to chase Trump down in the parking lot.After sending the waiters...There is no evidence whatsoever that Biden had any involvement in this.
Something changed, because people have been taking mints since the restaurant opened. Never once has anyone asked for them back.
Then he had no reason to lie about having them.
Whether he did or didn't lie is irrelevant to my point. It's not a false equivalence since the claim is that he stole them.
What you are reduced to saying (if you insanely maintain that Trump was not authorized) is that Biden stole them, but he's too stupid to know he stole them until he sees someone else getting beaten up over doing the same thing.
Not a false equivalence then, in fact it proves the point nicely: Biden stole them first, nobody beat him up.
Created:
What if Best.Korea is such a clueless idiot that he went and asked a public API this stuff with his real IP?[Best.Korea] You think asking questions isnt allowed.Asking questions is allowed.
Your clueless idiot act is rock solid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
A dog can see wrongness but there is not one thing they do right that you do wrong, is that so?
A dog can see wrongness if the connection between the value and the action that threatens it is within their ability to conceptualize.
There is nothing they can be guaranteed to do right or wrong and there is nothing that humans can be guaranteed to do right or wrong.
Keep in mind where there is no choice there is no morality. Morality refers to choices. If there is no option to do right or wrong then it's not a moral question. Like breathing. It is incoherent to say dogs and humans are both morally excellent because they will both always try to breathe.
A particular dog can do something right where I, in similar circumstances, did something wrong. It is not and cannot be a "they are always better", it can be a "they are generally better"
and no, I can't think of any category of moral decision where dogs are generally morally superior in a significant way.
There are a category of "animal people" who really get off on prattling about how great non-humans are compared to our demonic ape selves. It is in my opinion BS. A nicer species than us, you'll never find. If we have a tendency to obsess over our own evil it's because we love the good so much. If we do great evil it's because our big brains give us enormous power. I have no doubt that the instinctual foundation of other species would allow for similar atrocity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
So even dogs see wrongness in killing a defenseless person you're saying.
I'm saying their value system grows as they learn, sometimes into a tangled mess and sometimes into a semblance of coherent order. If you imagine instincts as the soil then the values are like the tips of the plants that grow out of the soil.
The difference between the value system of a human and the value system of a dog is in how far removed from the soil the final values can be and how recursively they can be generated.
A human can choose values based on other values and keep doing that until they've convoluted themselves into something bizarre, like say believing that cutting out the heart of one of their own tribe and eating it is a good thing because crops need to grow and the sun won't rise if you don't do that.
With that potential a human can also write a declaration of human rights (which we all know would apply to cognizant aliens).
I'm saying that because a dog has some capacity for abstraction his value system has some capacity for diversity and his perceptions of reality also have significant capacity to vary. Which is to say: You can't make blanket predictions about how a dog will behave.
A dog can see the wrongness in killing a defenseless person, but there is no guarantee. You can train a dog to not attack defenseless people but that's different than a dog seeing value in people's lives. A sociopathic dog (insofar as that has any meaning) can be convinced by pain and reward to behave a certain way, but it absolutely not the case that you need to train a dog to not attack defenseless people or they will kill defenseless people.
No dog I have ever know has had to be taught to not kill people. Yes, not biting is something that needs to be discouraged; but even dogs that bite are almost never trying to kill. It's just a completely unacceptable way to communicate.
A wolf that is raised by wolves would probably think nothing of killing a defenseless human. They kill prey all the time. A wolf that is raised among humans would have to be provoked or frightened to kill a human. That's a learned value system. The instinctual foundation has a slot for peers and prey and because canines have some abstraction ability non-canines can occupy the peer slot in the "vegetation" of secondary values.
In terms of what they're capable of doing, what does the dog do right that you do wrong?
Oh I was just making a cheap joke. I don't think dogs are more moral than humans. As I said above they have less capacity to delude themselves but that comes at a cost of not seeing moral principles which often leads them to do the wrong thing (something against their own values) without realizing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
One can train a dog to behave in a particular way.
As one can train a human to behave in a particular way.
Though it's behaviour will always be compared with human behaviour, by humans.
And a human's behavior will be compared with dog behavior, by dogs... and cats, and horses etc.. etc...
The dog will not make such comparisons.
He or she certainly will. If you whine like a dog, the dog will react as they would to another dog. If you slowly blink your eyes at a cat, the cat will react as if you are another cat.
All theory of other minds starts with oneself and it's no different for them. What's amazing is that the theory can evolve so we can understand those quite different from ourselves. They can't do that quite as well as us, but they can do it. Smiling in humans means happy, but to most predators baring teeth means aggression. Even our close cousins like chimps and gorillas don't take it well.
Dogs, cats, horses, and certainly the other great apes (with time) can learn what the expression really means.
It will simply respond appropriately, according to circumstance.
You're taking the immensely complex set of factors which produce behavior, you're smushing it into a black box, and then you're calling that "appropriate".
He will respond in accordance to his nature, nurture, and character. Which also perfectly describes how a human will respond.
His experiences tell him what to fear and love and what does or does not work. That combines with character traits like boldness, extroversion, neuroticism, etc... and this is all undergird by a foundation of instincts (many of them common to many species due to their ancient nature).
Some dogs are reliable brave and aggressive, and respond to threats with aggression almost always. Some are frozen in fear and indecision over something like walking over ice. They can overcome learned fears and acquire new ones. They can learn to tolerate things they once hated and learn to hate things they once loved.
So if a dog kills a person because of the circumstances in which it finds itself, then it has done nothing wrong.
I agree he may not realize he has done something wrong, but if there is any sense in these moral terms they have to mean something. A dog has values, and if he kills someone he considered part of his pack in a panic over a misconception then that is wrong by the standard of his values whether he realizes it or not. His emotions will follow his values and he will mourn, and if regret means emotional pain that changes behavior he may very well regret.
The onus of responsibility for the dogs actions will fall upon humans.
If a human child urinates on someone's lunch would the responsibility not fall on the parents?
There is a difference between "doing nothing wrong" and "not knowing you've done wrong".
Dogs, young children, and grown-ass-men (if they're indoctrinated) may honestly believe they've done nothing wrong. If you blame someone other than them, you're asserting a duty for someone to teach and regulate them.
I don't have to say anything about when teaching, regulating, and displaced responsibility are appropriate to tell you there is a difference between a stone falling on an innocent person and a dog killing an innocent person. A dog may be a thousand times less capable of perceiving a moral principle than a man but he has values. A stone has no values. You can't trust a stone, predicting interactions with a stone (or an ant or a tree) has nothing to do with a theory of another mind.
You can trust a dog, and it's not because a dog is three-laws safe. If a dog was a machine it wouldn't be trust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Mall
@DavidAZZ
[zedvictor4] And dogs cannot do anything wrong because they are not programmed to.Whereas persons often behave counterintuitively...Which to be fair, is the nature of the beast.
And dogs cannot do anything wrong because they are not programmed to.[DavidAZZ] Mall, I would agree with Zed on this one. Animals do not have morals or consciousness. They are trained to be aggressive or brutal. That is why we sue the owner of that dog and not the dog itself.
You're both completely wrong.
You might be able to say they don't have morals because morals require a conscious awareness of one's own values, but they certainly have values and emotional reactions to those values being attained or threatened.
Personality, individual character, is the opposite of programming and the higher animals show plenty.
The capability to train a dog or a dolphin or a raven proves nothing. We know humans can be trained, rather easily when you control every aspect of their life as it happens. "we" sue the dog's owner, but "we" also used to sue the owner of a slave.
Now just because society was wrong once doesn't mean it is wrong again, but you have to admit that society has a capacity for self-delusion about person-hood and it sounds exactly like that. A baseless ascription of all behavior to training and breed.
They learn, and no two think exactly alike even with almost identical nurture. That sounds more like humans than a machine. We know what machine-like animals look like, every arthropod; every fish I've ever heard of, probably true of amphibians too.
[Mall] Is there or is there not something wrong with a dog killing a defenseless person?
Yes there is something wrong with it.
We value life, but not always. They value life, but not always.
There are three ways a human can be bad:
1.) He can lack our values or refuse to abstract them. You can't prove he's bad to him, but he's bad to 'us'.
2.) He can share our values, but through lack of self-discipline or mental clarity act against those values.
3.) He can share our values, and understand what priorities and sub-values they imply, but he can make an honest mistake.
It is tradition to not condemn (3) too harshly. It is very likely that a dog who does something evil is in category (3) but that doesn't mean evil is not a problem. It's also possible for a dog to be (1). I believe in dog sociopaths and I think many of them function just fine (like human sociopaths) because they want the food to keep coming.
There are people (people who I bet never got to know a dog) who think all animals are (1). That we project humanity on to them and it's all an act designed to increase treat output. They're clueless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
What does the dog do right that you [Sidewinder] do wrong ?
The dog doesn't go on the internet and lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I think OP is about as concise as you can get. Maybe that means we need better concepts here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Once TDS reaches this stage, there is no cure. I'm sorry Mrs. Sidewalker, there is no hope. He currently thinks Donald Trump is worse than Hitler based on the willingness of fellow patients to accuse him of crimes.I hope everybody saw my sarcasm in my last post.I think so, the point was that the MAGA movement is fascist too, right?But of course, the comparison is unfair, Hitler was never charged with 91 felonies, and he never had 27 women accuse him of rape.
Created:
Posted in:
Let's get some statistics going. It always seems to me that the left-tribe is more guilty than anyone else of whatever their prime accusations for others are. I've heard left-tribers say the inverse.
Use this thread to post all examples of when you think a faction is projecting what they are guilty of. I'll start with this:
Just shoot em in the leg Cornpop.
Created:
[Best.Korea] Lets ask AI again:However, if someone is fixated on inappropriate or harmful thoughts involving minors, such as imagining little Catholic boys in a disturbing way, it is essential to recognize that this is not acceptable behavior.
I had a horrible thought. What if Best.Korea is such a clueless idiot that he went and asked a public API this stuff with his real IP?
What if they get a warrant and he's connecting to this site without a proxy? Then they'd see his pedo apologetics.
Would it be poetic justice for him to be put on a watch-list because he was brazenly reveling in slander?
Created: