Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
FBI, yeah right. It was all on tape?
The person who dropped off those supposed pipe bombs has never been identified.
You do realize that the feds aren't constrained by the laws of nature to have big identifying logos on them right? They don't even have to be on the employee roster. They call them "informants", just average everyday citizens who are being bribed or extorted into engineering plots against the government (see Whitmer false flag)
We've charged 1200+ out of what, two thousand, mostly based on tape
"We've" don't throw me in with the fascists show courts.
and not a single FBI agent has emerged?
<extreme sarcasm>Huh, well I guess you have a point. We all know that the charging apparatus is, like the pope, infallible and perfect. There is absolutely no way there could be a mechanism by which the fascist FBI who is looking at the tapes and sending lists of people to charge to their fascist so-called prosecutors might filter that list by removing their agent provocateurs.
Nah, impossible. You must be right. </extreme sarcasm>
That's what separates a conspiracy theory fron fact-finding.
"fact finding" "conspiracy theory" Right Mr. "They had bazookas in the potamic but I don't believe in conspiracy theories"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Chanting, rope, Pence said he was scared. Even if all true, doesn't refute the point in the slightest. They owned tons of guns, they left them outside the city on purpose which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that they were attempting military action.If MAGA conservatives wanted to murder elected officials, they would have brought their guns.I would encourage you to educate yourself about the facts of Jan 6th. As soon as you do, you will discover that the crowd chanted for hours "Hang Mike Pence." The crowd brought effective nooses to with 30 feet of the place where Pence hid with his wife and family. Pence has testified under oath that he understood that his family's lives were in terrible danger. Remember that when Pence got to the limos, his regular team had been replaced by people he didn't know and Pence wisely ran away from that Secret Service team. We still don't know what those dudes orders were.
It also specifically excludes the definition of "insurrection"
Trump wants to do it using our old fashioned and unnecessarrily complicated electoral system, using it or abusing it.
If using legal arguments constitutes overthrowing a government, then what are all these prosecutions
MAGA did bring a significant cache of guns to Jan 6th
Not into the city.
more than enough to kill a few thousand necessary to secure the Capitol.
and yet the only people who died were protestors, one of them by a bullet.
Nevertheless, more than 123 terrorists have been charged with using a deadly weapon onto the Capitol grounds
DC court charges mean nothing. They had flag poles, and in some cases the batons the police used on them first.
One Iraq vet testified thsy one cache waiting on a boat in the Potomac, less than a mile from the Capitol held "more weapons than I've seen since the Iraq War."
Pictures? Evidence lists? What was this guy threatened with?
The pipe bombs failed to explode.
You mean the ones the feds probably left the day before?
We know of a couple of other independent caches, dudes who just filled their cars up with their home arsenals and drove an impressive array of arms including pipe bombs.
Imaginary pipe bombs again. Why were none of these terrible weapons at the capitol? Where are the pictures?
Obviously the original plan was to bomb the DNC and RNC National headquarters simultaeously, so that most police would be away from teh Capitol when the mob arrived.
A distraction that was 24 hours early huh? Why would capitol police run towards the sound of an explosion party headquarters? That's not their duty to protect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
are you a conservative?
I won't self-identify as that because these charged terms are so controversial and poorly defined that to use them harms communication rather than helping it.
I believe liberty is the sole root objective moral principle.
If language was being used reasonably that would make me a liberal. In reality 'libertarian' has no etymological distinction from 'liberal' but self-identified libertarians are much more likely to agree with me and vice versa than self-identified 'conservatives' or self-identified 'progressives'.
I have voted for and donated to libertarian candidates in the past.
As for "progress" vs "conservation" it's a false dichotomy. Change isn't inherently good or bad and thus it is always better to talk about what is good and bad vs what is new vs old.
In this moment American conservatives claim to be conserving many things. Some claim to be conserving the value of liberty, which I agree with; but that liberty was a radical departure from the norm at the time of the war for independence.
There is a more subtle difference than nomenclature alone. I suspect that more than a few "conservatives" value liberty because it is an inherited value rather than because it is valuable. Then are often blind to the possibility that the founders plan was not perfect and that it might be improved.
All that despite the fact that the declaration of independence explicitly laid out the justification and the goal of writing a constitution. It was to achieve liberty.
"these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
To the 'true' conservative, any change is bad; and it is just a coincidence of fate that the majority of those who want change want bad change, thus leaving me in the same tribe as the conservatives.
I have a value to aim for and so do libertarians. To us, it's not progress unless people are getting freer.
you look like a super smart/intellectual conservative, which to my prejudices isn't very common.
I'm sure I'll say something to make you doubt that at some point, probably already have and you forgot about it.
Anecdotally I find more than a kernel of truth in the mid-wit meme (here is an example: https://i.imgur.com/VCtbjhp.jpeg)
The reason I think this is generally the case is pretty straight forward: There are two ways you can grow up in the western world without becoming a sheep-person for the mainstream media:
1.) Be too stupid to understand propaganda, look only at outcomes and not care about reasons.
2.) Be smart enough to see the contradictions in the propaganda, have enough confidence in your own intelligence to look at claimed reasoning.
I think there are some very smart people in the left-tribe, but I have never seen them apply their intelligence to left-tribe dogma. We know intelligence can be asymmetrically applied, the sheer number of religious geniuses is proof enough. Did you know Issac Newton invested considerable time studying the bible looking for scientific information?
I have found that talking about intelligence is generally useless. No one gets any more incorrect because you call them stupid. Nobody gets more correct because you call them intelligent.
The truth is found through reason, and even if some people are better equipped to wield reason that doesn't absolve them of the necessity of committing to objectivity nor is claimed stupidity of others a license to provide no reasoning when a claim is made.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it happened a lot in many states. in order to get a mail in vote thing, by law the citizen was suppose to request it. but, due to covid, many governors sent out those mail in vote things, to everyone or a lot of people. they technically broke the law by doing this.
This is correct. It wasn't always governors though. Many times secretaries of state acted alone. Other times it was done via friendly lawsuits. A citizen sues the government to change the election protocol and the government (who wanted to do it but was too afraid) told the judge "whoops I guess I have no good arguments, order me daddy!"
It would take an extraordinarily brave judge to say "the plaintiff isn't allowed to sue the defendant to change/break the law"
A similar trick was done for the children of illegal immigrants. The supreme court ruled that when the government creates a program (even if only by executive order) an entitlement may be created and future governments may not reneg.
That could be abused to absurd ends (to create unrepealable law via executive fiat) and probably will be as the lawfare front widens. Just imagine what kind of entitlements Trump could spawn.
the most i've seen as far as a fair counter to this, was the republicans should have challenged this in court, and that that was their legal recourse whether they did or didn't.
If that's the best counter it's a bad one since many attempts to challenge these changes were made and the judges always ruled "Hey, you have to have injury in fact, come back when something bad has actually happened"
Then after something bad happened the judges said "Should have sued before hand, you waited too long (see latches https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/laches#:~:text=Laches%20is%20a%20doctrine%20in,to%20as%20estoppel%20by%20laches.
So apparently there was a single instant in time when you can sue over violations of election law. Some say that the left-tribe is opening a pandora's box, but they aren't. All that matters is how partisan the judges are. Right-tribe judges will follow precedent even to the detriment of the right-tribe. Left-tribe judges will simply throw out anything that is inconvenient at the time.
i ain't a trumpanzee either, and most of trumpanzee ideas are baseless conspiracy theories...
You just explained one of the bases.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think anyone is even reading the report list?
Created:
Posted in:
Apparently, meat and animal products are much more likely to contain harmful viruses and bacteries.
We now know why bad stuff happens and so now we can be scientific about the safety of eating raw animal meat. In most cases it's fine, most doesn't cut it. That is why almost all cultures got tired of seeing people bleed out the back door and die so they boiled, fried, and baked meat to the point of taboo (and in the case of some religions doctrine).
Here is one thing I learned the hard way:
Just because you kill the bacteria, doesn't mean they didn't leave toxins behind. You can't always taste or smell the poison. You can't cook something into safety, don't buy meat you aren't going to cook or freeze within two days. Especially true of fish.
Up to you what you eat and how you prepare it, but plants aren't always safe. You can get food poisoning from plants and I have (stupid salad kit).
If you didn't do something stupid like leave it in the fridge for a month I would consider avoiding whatever grocery or restaurant provided you with the food.
Created:
Posted in:
Not every libertarian is the same and many have less than perfect moral frameworks.
Harm would have to be very precisely defined in order to be useful in a moral formulation. Some people call it harm when you don't put out on the first date. Some people call it murder if you fire someone who can't feed themselves.
Coherent libertarians, that is the coherent principle of liberty is "do what ever you want so long as you don't reduce the choices others would have if it was impossible to interact with you"
So that means you can leave your girlfriend/boyfriend even if that act would cause them emotional pain because having you is not something they can have by right.
Some other useful terms:
Right - That which you may morally do contingent on no one else
Privilege - That which you may morally do contingent on the consent of another
These are contextual concepts. By selecting all relevant parties a privilege becomes a right.
You don't have a right to marry Jane Doe. However you and Jane Doe have a right to marry each other. (maybe marriage is a bad example, say have a child rather than get hung up on that)
You don't have a right to a job, but you and your employer have a right to establish your employment.
You don't have a right to bread, but you and a baker have a right to trade.
You don't have a right to a house, but you have a right to buy a house if someone is willing to sell it to you.
This principle is morally perfect. It implies no contradictions and can be justified by universal value analysis.
It is in almost all cases also practical. The best and biggest example of its impracticability is the claiming of land (and other finite natural resources)
This problem is imposed by physics and not any error in the value analysis.
The solution is to obey the moral principle wherever it applies and where it does not to solve the problem culturally by creating and maintaining a system of claims that is fair (which means a lot of things but I won't get into it unless asked), resistant to corruption, and as constant as possible.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
There are laws where intent is a factor, and either through precedent or explicitly in the law state of mind is a factor.
In that tradition it would matter what law he is being accused of violating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
If the charge of the particle changes
It doesn't. Spin is about an intrinsic magnetic behavior not charge (unless you're calling it a magnetic charge?), but that's not important because nothing 'changes' except what we know about both the local and distant state.
Let me try to explain this step by step. You entangle two electrons. You put them in two boxes and take the boxes far away from each other. First thing to remember is that when I say "electron" I don't mean a tiny ball. It's a standing EM wave with possibly some gravity waves in amongst it (you will fry your brain if you try to think about QM and standard model at the same time).
So this standing wave thing is trapped by other electric fields, an electron trap (which I mentioned before) is simply a region of space surrounded by negative electric fields which 'repulse the electron' = 'reflect the EM wave' = ' reflect the quantum wave' to keep it inside that space.
It's oscillating, they're always oscillating and when we talk about 'particles with mass' we mean a single quantum of a standing wave (a standing wave is a wave that oscillates in the same region of space. FYI when we talk about 'particles without mass' we mean traveling waves, these always move at the speed of light.
The only thing you can know about this trapped oscillating waveform (with exactly the energy to manifest as an electron) is that it has charge. The instant it interacts in a way so as to transfer any energy or affect anything else in the universe the wave collapses to a single point.
At that instant it makes sense to talk about the 'particle' electron. So you measure something about it. The typical example is (magnetic) spin. This requires a wave collapse because all measurements require collapse.
When you collapse the wave in your box, you know something about what would happen if the wave in the other box is collapsed, but you didn't cause the other one to collapse and you don't have any control over what is measured when the other one collapses. You also break entanglement. It's better if you think about the post-collapse wave as a "new particle" as it can (and will) have entirely different quantum properties totally unrelated to the 'the partner'.
In quantum mechanics you get to choose what kind of spookey you're most comfortable with, but conversations like this show that it does matter what you pick. If you pick the wrong concept you make wrong predictions.
I have always found that the spookiness of non-local variables and instantaneous collapse of fields potentially billions of light years in dimensions is the interpretation that causes the fewest bad predictions. When we're talking about entanglement we're talking about two different quantum systems that do not interact/collapse as one.
It looks like u r into software, r u a developer?
Yes
How r u so conversant on quanta phenomenon? Is it job or hobby related?
Leftover from university. Anyone who can teach themselves QM as a hobby is too smart to be trying to explain it on a small population debate site. As far as I know there are only two ways to have QM part of your job description: post-graduate research or being a professional bullshitter.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't see how that changes anything.People should not be encouraged to do blackmail, especially against criminals because that requires that criminal activity go unreported (in theory) and it motivates people to entrap others into crimes they may not have ever committed (people should never stand to gain by fellow citizens committing crimes).What if the crime was against the person doing the blackmailing though?
Unless a powerful political faction stands to profit these things don't make national news.A hypothetical court case regarding this would make the news just like Keneddy v Lousiana did.
Well there are only two possibilities then: Either no 17 year old has attempted this scam and had their bluff called, or it isn't so newsworthy that either of us know about it after all.
change the laws
You've said that several times. I agree we should change the laws until they are objectively correct, not make exceptions to protect the general public from the consequences of the flaws.
Other than that, there is no point in telling me to change the laws. I would if I could.
I didn't presume that.
Not enough people on here care to go find quotes. You know what you said and so do I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
The whole point of entanglement is that what happens to one particle, also happens to the other, no matter how far away, at the same time. So isn't your description inaccurate?
No, that's not what entanglement means. My description is accurate, what you have heard is a corruption of the facts/theory. One misunderstanding can create many myths as we're seeing in this discussion.
I don't know if entanglement can be manipulated beyond a single peice of info, movement, tho, and it seems that that would be the issue
Measurement isn't manipulation, that's the conceptual error.
If you imagine the state of the entangled system as a box you must open to find a -1 or a +1, and you know that a million light years away if you see a -1, the other measurement must be a +1 how do you transmit information with that?
Sure if you could talk separately you could tell them something about their system, and a lot of people find that 'spooky'; but if you could communicate you wouldn't need 'quantum communication'.
To put it in software terms, if the spin of an entangled electron (well a system which would collapse to an electron when interacted with) is a single bit of information; then it's a read-only bit populated by a probability distribution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nothing a DC court does is relevant, and there will be no victory so long as that sentiment is not shared among the resistance to the deep state.
Their show courts mean nothing. All that matters is that they have abducted people and are holding them as prisoners of war. The only course to resolution is a course to victory and the only course to victory is the manufacture of wispy legal justification in the same way the enemy has done.
I fear victory will not come because people have no idea what they're up against. They think they're playing one game, the game they've learned by watching movies, TV, and news anchors; but that game is a fantasy and the real game has different rules entirely.
For instance, there are people; many people who think that if somehow Trump was elected in 2024 and stopped tiptoeing around we might find out exactly how many Three-Letter goons were in and around the capitol building that day.
As if they would have to provide records of their crimes just because Donald Trump orders it! We'll never know. They will turn over whatever fabricated documents they want to, half truths are always easier to sell. It wouldn't matter if Trump went to an army base in the first hour of being sworn in and took it straight to the FBI headquarters in DC. They would still have time to delete and destroy all the evidence.
MAGA or "the resistance" is like the cop who answers the phone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WSbs8yCaGk
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Here is a much better video about how quantum computing is supposed to crack public/private encryption schemes like RSA. Veratasium sometimes digs himself a conceptual bear trap (what 'carries' energy electric charge of electric field) and jumps into it BTW, so this isn't an endorsement of the channel just saying there are much more detailed claims and his description of RSA encryption is accurate:
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
To be clear, you wouldn't be charged with a crime for the sex, but blackmail is a crime in many jurisdictions. It is often a felony to attempt blackmail even when the blackmail is reporting a 'actual' crime.Really? If someone used blackmail against Osama Bin Laden and decided to turn them into the US military, the US military wouldn't punish them.
Why would you choose judicial grey area? Traditionally the US military doesn't deal with criminal law (besides to regulate itself) at all.
Say it's the cops and someone is turning in a serial killer, whether or not a prosecutor decides to do anything about blackmailing a serial killer, there is no provision in the law which states that blackmail is a crime that requires only innocent victims. In fact I know of several instances where the opposite is true, that is delaying reporting criminal activity for the purposes of blackmail is specifically punished (adding to the punishment of blackmail). People should not be encouraged to do blackmail, especially against criminals because that requires that criminal activity go unreported (in theory) and it motivates people to entrap others into crimes they may not have ever committed (people should never stand to gain by fellow citizens committing crimes).
Same thing if someone used blackmail on Jeffery Epstein or any pedophile that has sex with kids.
Perhaps, but unequal application of the law is one of the major issues in the US and the world right now. Prosecutorial discretion is a violation of the 14th amendment IMO. Failure to prosecute is not proof of legality, something anyone who has ever driven on a highway should be aware of.
The law is the law and should be enforced 100% while it is the law (and I think bad laws should get changed).
I strongly agree.
Blackmail for the sake of the law should be 100% legal
"blackmail for the sake of the law" is an empty set.
The whole country would know the court case and the whole country's opinion would change at the same rate about as the jury.
You are confused about how the media works. Hundreds of rape cases are doubtless going on right now, more than one is inevitably statutory rape (i.e. consenting but they call it rape because #(&$# definitions). Unless a powerful political faction stands to profit these things don't make national news.
Acting on pedophillia is a crime.
Ctrl-F it. The crime adults who have sex with minors are charged with is "statutory rape" or something of that sort. Of course in people's minds it is about the person, and that's why I think the man would be found not guilty by most juries. They hate pedophiles, not people who were tricked into 'acting like a pedophile'.
They can have empathy for someone (the man in this case) if they can imagine themselves as being victimized in the same way.
be upfront with it if it's what you believe.Says the pro-pain absolutist... I wasn't convinced by your denial. (lol)Why? How is all of the bullet points I mentioned then even arguably an endorsement of pain?
Apparently all it takes is the presumption that I'm anti-pain and then anyone who disagrees with me automatically becomes a pro-pain absolutist until proven otherwise...
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That was basically Epstein's business model and it apparently worked well for a time.I wouldn't be Epstein pimping out little girls. But if I was a 17 year old girl, I might do what can legally be done while it's legal and highly profitable.
To be clear, you wouldn't be charged with a crime for the sex, but blackmail is a crime in many jurisdictions. It is often a felony to attempt blackmail even when the blackmail is reporting a 'actual' crime.
The legal code wasn't born yesterday and despite it's many flaws this isn't one of them. Of course minors often get away with things adults can't, but the window of opportunity is very small if you only receive payments for 1-2 years as a minor.
Outside of the pedo-paranoia at the national level, juries and prosecutors do care about context.The juries are going to represent the consensus of their culture.
It's an uphill battle, but not an unwinnable one; not yet. One of the reasons bars are locations to hit on people is because it would be illegal for minors to be drinking. Most people can see through a fair amount of BS if you focus their attention for longer than 5 minutes (such as in court).
If a lot of the culture becomes pro legalized pedophillia once they realized this, the jury will reflect that.
The question is not whether they support pedophilia but whether they are so blinded by outrage as to recognize the difference between pedophilia and a young woman committing the crime of blackmail.
People high on Alex Jones or who have recently binged law and order SVU would convict a ham sandwich of pedophilia, but they are not the norm. It makes people feel good to express outrage at child rape. It's an easy win for their simple minds. Like bashing Nazis. "Jeez the sky is blue today" never gets push back.
Behind closed doors (like in a jury) and forced to focus for hours, most would be a bit more rational and it only takes one.
Nothing consensual should be called rape. Whether or not it should be allowed is a more complicated subject, but if it is banned it should be under much lighter punishment, carry no "sex offender" etc...Do you endorse lightening the sentences for pedophillia (which means it might go so far as to legalize pedophillia)?
Pedophilia isn't a crime and shouldn't be a crime as it would be thought crime if it was a crime.
I endorse removing the concept of 'statutory rape', reforming the legal concept of 'informed consent' to a more rational form, and if objective arguments for banning consensual sex for certain age gaps can be made I would say the punishments for that crime should be as light as possible while still being a deterrent.
It's pretty obvious that the 'creepiness' is proportional to the likelihood of foul play (such as bribery, emotional blackmail, and general grooming) which is itself proportional to the age gap and reduced exponentially with absolute increases in age. The punishment should thus be proportional to that provided no specific evidence to the contrary.
i.e. 18 year old + 17 year old = $100 fine, 40 year old + 18 year old = $5000, 60 year old + 16 year old = $1,000,000 sort of thing
be upfront with it if it's what you believe.
Says the pro-pain absolutist... I wasn't convinced by your denial. (lol)
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That was basically Epstein's business model and it apparently worked well for a time.
Fortunately of all the evil 17 year old women very few have the "balls" (aggressive disregard for consequences) to try. Whether or not this is widely gamed out in their minds I do not know, but blackmailing people is not a safe activity. Some people counter-attack. There is reason to believe Epstein's organization fell because of a counter-attack, Bill Gates almost seemed to gloat about it.
Also it's hard to play a victim and have proof at the same time. Outside of the pedo-paranoia at the national level, juries and prosecutors do care about context.
Regardless the law is wrong. Nothing consensual should be called rape. Whether or not it should be allowed is a more complicated subject, but if it is banned it should be under much lighter punishment, carry no "sex offender" etc...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
i still would think it's possible in theory to use the quantum state, even if it just means using morse code based on the manipulation of on and off. if morse code can be done, higher level communication should be possible. if i'm making sense, i'm not sure.
You're making sense insofar as being able to manipulate anything even as simple as on/off and have that reflected at another point in space instantaneously would be the whole sum of the sci-fi claim.
Telegram wires started with on/off and all digital communication is "on/off" rapidly and with many channels.
The problem is that there is no such option implied by quantum mechanics. An EM wave can radiate from a star and hit two distant planets simultaneously. If the photon appears on one planet, then it won't appear at the other, and there is no way to predict absolutely which planet the interaction will occur at.
That's not a toggle switch.
After an interaction (which was itself a wave collapse) two resulting traveling waves can (in the right circumstances) be said to have been entangled. That is a property (most often used as example is electron spin) can be measured and whatever one is the other is the opposite.
There is no way to know which is which before measuring one.
If somehow you could capture post-entanglement electrons and spirit them to opposite ends of the universe what can you do? You can measure the state of the one you took with you. Does something instantly happen to the other? No.
Is there some way to detect that a measurement has occurred on the other? No.
That is not a toggle switch. In fact entanglement is different from wave collapse and hidden variables have not been disproved for entanglement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
you are better at being able to articulate the ideas than me, but what do you think of this sixty minutes clip?
Starts off with "IBM will announce", not a good omen. IBM hasn't delivered on their futurism for thirty years. Only the government and ancient companies tied to ancient IT systems actually buy anything from them anymore.
if i remember right, they said they can currently do computation with quantum mechanics, it's just not currently faster than traditional computers, and it's error prone. they have a proto type at the cleveland clinic.
Yes I've heard these claims too, but I'm also bombarded by ads where they're trying to sell something that violates conservation of energy. It's entirely possible that they are keeping the details secret to keep their advantage but the fact remains that nobody can explain what the hell they're actually doing.
There is plenty of grey area for people to delude themselves into thinking they've made something revolutionary when they haven't. I can find you stories about warp fields at NASA for example. You can find articles about microscopic wormholes being opened, or tiny blackholes, or chinese labs with dark matter.
You look into it, nothing burger. Most of the time it's one guy with a pHD using imprecise language with a 'science communicator' who is fishing for it, asking a silly question and out of politeness the scientist doesn't shut him down. Then the 'communicator' goes to a journalist and things go downhill from there.
Contrast this with the gravitational wave measurement which is an astounding piece of engineering and a confirmation of previously purely theoretical physics. To the layman that makes it the same as these other things, but to people like myself who have the foundation to understand it's very easy to tell the difference. You just google the experimental apparatus and if you find schematics and descriptions (and they are coherent) there is a good chance you're looking at genuine science.
Talk is cheap. Math and experimental data don't guarantee authenticity but the lack of them is more than a little suspicious.
Anyways, back to the video:
1:16 "Computes with the atomic forces that created the universe"
An excellent example of flowery discovery channel language that means nothing. Most of the acceleration of the air we breathe of is due to electric and magnetic forces. Is that one of those "atomic forces that created the universe"? In that case every electronic device including every 'conventional' transistor computer "computers with the atomic forces that created the universe"
1:20 "Dario Gill is something of a quantum crusader"
'Crusader' is an appropriate choice of words.
3:05 "quantum abandons transistors and encodes information on electrons that behave like this coin" And what is that supposed to actually mean? An array of bits means something because we define our instruction sets and compiled code to interpret it to mean something. A state that means everything is a state that means nothing, and I'm just making a point about information theory here. There is no freaking way this translate in any rational way to the quantum state of an interaction with an electron.
3:32 A WILD MICHIO KAKU APPEARS
This man drives me nuts. There are compilations on him that (to the scientifically aware) are like Alex Jones. Blathering on about wormholes and how the only 'problem' with them is they might be bumpy. This joker tried to stop a rocket launch because of an RTG. Understanding nuclear decay neutron absorption depths is very basic, not pHD level in the slightest.
3:45 "Let's look at how a classical computer navigates a maze"
Cue the prefabricated animation that is in no way representative of any software on transistors or whatever the hec they showed at the beginning.
"Scans all possible routes simultaneously", if anyone reading this is a software engineer, they might be thinking "you mean like multi-threaded algorithms?" SHUTUP! Only the deep magic of 'quantum' can have parallelism.
5:10 "this is one Q-bit, here is another"
Well, pictures; that's new. An electron trap apparently. Then what?
9:24 "She told us that healthcare would be transformed if quantum computers could model the behavior of proteins"
That is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I remind you that just because I say A is better than B doesn't mean I find A acceptable. UBI is better than government welfare programs because there is very little room for public corruption to take advantage. Of course it would make a whole class of parasites but so long as they are deprived of any political power there should be no danger (anyone on UBI loses the ballot).it would be less corrupt to simply adopt a UBI and let the poor decide how to spend the money.So would you agree that everyone gets income that is enough to buy food?
Now, within that context, what I agree to doesn't matter. This is what people who are lured in by socialism do not understand. It's not about entitlement it's about production.
I want people to be able to feed themselves and I would love it if they didn't have to work a day in their life to do so but that is not something I decide. It doesn't matter if I "agree that everyone gets income that is enough to buy food", what matters is that somebody farms, somebody ships, somebody processes, somebody sells.
You can write a law that says "UBI must be enough to eat" but that law won't help anyone. If food is getting so expensive that UBI go from sufficient to insufficient then raising the UBI will almost certainly only accelerate that collapse.
The delusion of socialist sheep boils down to this: You can't starve, it's illegal
All that being said, if we took the entire budget of the military, medicare, and all those three letter agencies and routed it to a UBI, it would be enough for food and that would be a better way to spend the money. Because it's a less wasteful way to spend the money things would improve, but not nearly as quickly as if we just stopped stealing it in the first place.
USA anyway prints trillion dollars each year.
Which is redistribution if evenly handed out. Of course in reality they are routing it to government contractors, giant banks, and favored mega corps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
How much wealth redistribution is acceptable for you?
By force? None.
The context was slightly different. The least discomfort over all is probably achieved by some kind of UBI. This isn't a new moral theory by the way it's called utilitarianism and it has two fundamental problems:
1.) It is unrooted in universal values
2.) Utility (whether you call it pain, good, satisfaction, benefit) is unquantified and unquantifiable for the foreseeable future. The closest we can get is seeing what people choose for themselves at the price of their own effort, also known as a free market.
Should we have no food stamps?
We should feed those in danger of malnutrition through no fault of their own. We should not be forced to feed them. We should not feed them through things like food stamps which have consistently raised food prices anywhere they are accepted (just like all variants of this same strategy for public safety nets where the government steals money and then pays private suppliers).
In lieu of more effective systems (systems where motivations are proper) it would be less corrupt to simply adopt a UBI and let the poor decide how to spend the money.
Should we have no public schools and no private schools supported by government?
Governments can't support anything. They produce nothing but violence.
They can use that violence to steal money and pay for schools, that we should stop doing.
Society should (by choice) make quality education available to anyone who shows aptitude and interest.
The idea of student loans is not fundamentally flawed, but they must be executed under the corrective influence of the market. Loans to be a doctor or an engineer are likely to be paid back. Loans to study the effect of colonialism on vaginal emissions are not a good idea.
Should we have no government involved in healthcare?
A moral government should try to do everything (after careful planning factoring in everyone's motivations and using self-interest to prevent waste and corruption). That which it cannot do effectively it will not do because people will stop paying for failure.
Should the government not help poor children at all?
The government should not steal to help poor children. Neither should you. Neither should I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Some of the experts were my professors and nobody has ever been able to explain to me what (physically) a quantum bit is much less how to propagate states.I know quantum computing is right around the corner based on 60 minutes and the experts.
If the betting odds were 50:1 in favor of quantum computing ever being a thing I wouldn't bet a dollar.
I just assumed quantum communication could be too, cause it's at least possible in theory
Both 'ideas' are so imprecisely communicated that I couldn't even tell you how similar they are, but there is no theory for quantum communication.
It is "Wave collapse seems to transmit information instantly, therefore I can transmit information instantly", that's it. The whole shebang. There is no math, no theory, no engineering.
In reality (as seen in labs and predicted by the actual theory, i.e. the various equations that solve the Schrödinger equation) wave collapse is (for all we know) eternally and intrinsically impossible to manipulate. There are no particles with indeterminate state, you can't trap particles. What we call particles is an 'illusion' created by quantization of continuous traveling and standing fields (force fields in many contexts).
They choose to think of wave collapse as "transmitting information". This is why choosing words and being careful about definitions is so important. It's easy to confuse yourself.
Freezing complex organisms to me I wouldn't just assume is possible.
It's an entirely different domain of difficulty. Biology is a machine, of enormous complexity, but a machine none the less. Everything happens for a reason. Once we understand those reasons we can change them. It may be possible that the number of changes required for a human to live for a thousand years are so numerous that the end result is (biochemically) more different from an original human than a human is from a worm, but we know there will not be any impassible walls (such as moving faster than the speed of light in view of a third party).
The difference between a tree and a human comes down to protein and mRNA expression. Again, not saying it would be easy. It could take a thousand years of continuous research; but it can't be impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
quantum communication is soft science fiction (like wormholes and transporter beams), no reason to expect such a thing is possible; those who talk about it seriously have no understanding of quantum mechanics.
Long term hibernation is plausible given enough mastery of biology but is certainly not around the corner.
Self-replicating probes are plausible and feasible, and the fact that the universe isn't swamped with self-replicating probes from alien civilizations means something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
but there are no studies to confirm anything close to that
100 million dead.
And the point is not just "give poor people a job". One can have a job and still be in poverty.
If everything is too expensive.
The main point of wealth redistribution is to create better chance for people.
The main point of the pyramids was to resurrect everybody. Things don't always work as advertised.
If people can succeed in most cases only if born in rich family
That does not describe the United States of America between 1870 and 1910.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
To state the obvious, there aren't enough Jeff Bezoses and George Soroses in the world so that $1 from each would pay for much of anything.If you take $120K from Jeff Bezos and use the money to pay the student loan of a redneck STEM major from the University of Florida, do you think you have created or reduced pain overall?
The total can be more than the sum of its parts. If you bleed Bezos down to his last private jet each theft may have reduced average pain up till that point but still created more pain overall by:
A) increasing the cost of tuition
B) reducing the value of degrees (wasting the students time)
C) creating a generation of relatively useless people who can't produce, and suffer a loss of buying power when there are no more Bezoses to steal from
D) making sure anyone who would over produce moves to a freer society before doing so (ever shrinking territory for prosperity as the flawed policy spreads)
I think you would not be making a good argument if you answer anything other than reducing pain.
Oh well
It's more like people like me who have lost 40% of my income to inflationIt's the fed that produces inflation, and the fed is appointed by various presidents.Do you want the fed officials to be elected positions?
I want the fed destroyed and the debt cancelled. That is neither here nor there, however clueless the right-tribe may be about the economic poison the government is constantly spewing the left-tribe is worse and the deep state is worse than either.
There is a difference in values here certainly. The left-tribe and the right-tribe are both doing what they think is best for everyone. The deep state may have more than a few people that delude themselves into thinking that, but they're also cunning bastards and probably know they're doing what is best for themselves.
30% to taxesThat means you earn about $570K/year.
No it doesn't. Sometimes you have such naive assumptions and oversights that I wonder if you are American (like confusing the white house and capitol building)
If you are okay poor Floridian children starving to death due to lack of welfare (if their parents just don't want to get a job but vote red because of transgender culture war), honestly, I would be fine with that because I don't care how your parents vote, I don't want to take care of you.
No idea what you're on about.
But an anti pain person would try and ban insults whether they effect people from Harlem or West Virginia.
Then you have another example where a typical democrat is not anti-pain. They don't care if calling people racist causes pain.
Not every issue is the Ukraine war. Tell me how banning aborting zygotes reduces pain in the short or long term?
Well for a christian participating in murder is likely to end up in hell and that's pretty painful for the 'doctors' and mother. See how that works? You use left-tribe perception to argue they are "anti-pain" so it would only be fair to use right-tribe perceptions to counter.
Now personally I don't care if a murder reduces unwanted pain over the short or long term. I morality (the objective morality) is based around liberty, not pain. which (again) was one of the ways your dichotomy fails. Using a different concept for moral evaluation is not taking the inverse position of someone else. If they value non-pain and I value liberty, that doesn't mean my morality is pro-pain.
I want to try and get people to be their own shepherd.
Start with the guy in the mirror. Go look up a few things:
1) The evolution of the word "terrorism", did the battles at Lexington and Concord always qualify as "terrorism"?
2) A map of DC, specifically the national mall and the location of key buildings
3) The concept of multi-jurisdiction taxation
Russia has a deep state too, and theirs is more powerful over Russia than America's is over America.
A) Plausible, but detecting it and its extent would only be possible for someone who spoke Russian and paid close attention to events in Russia over a long period
B) You can't destroy a deep state from outside without total war, total war against a nuclear power is definitely not "anti pain", in fact it is futile and insane.
Therefore the Russian deep state is a problem only Russian people can solve. When my country removes the beam in its own eye I might consider wagging a finger disapprovingly.
US hegemony is based.
It's every bit the disaster that the Athenian hegemony was and it won't end well (lots of unwanted pain). A man needs to earn the respect needed to lead constantly and so does a people. The American people no longer deserve to lead.
America at this point in time is exception for only two reasons:
How it imports real goods and services and exports extortion and war
How much money it invests in the military (with no real enemies who can be defeated by conventional military)
How arrogant the deep state propaganda makes its people, everyone else in the world can see the obvious: America sticks its nose everywhere and yet has proven time and again that it can't solve social or international problems any better than others
America was exceptional when it had exceptional legal momentum protecting liberty, especially economic liberty. The world has gotten freer and the US has gotten more oppressive. It's over, and it's not coming back unless the American people return to the course of true progress.
because you're entitled to the land and I'm not? Try to get rid of me and there will be some unwanted pain involved I guarantee it.
I have to assume the right is still a pro pain absolutist party, whereas the left is an anti pain absolutist party. For me, if you aren't harming anyone else fiscally or otherwise to a significent degree and you are old enough, I'm a pro freedom guy.
So... how aren't you a pro-pain absolutist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Every dollar the government steals could have averted unwanted pain.So is taking $1 from globalists like Jeff Bezos and George Soros to fund the college bills of an American Patriot from West Virginia really causing more pain to the globalists than it is reducing pain to the college kid from West Virginia?
Pain, especially general emotional dissatisfaction which you seem to be including is unquantified. As such no absolute argument about comparisons can be made and that especially highlights the absurdity of claiming anything "undeniably" increases or reduces pain.
To state the obvious, there aren't enough Jeff Bezoses and George Soroses in the world so that $1 from each would pay for much of anything. It's more like people like me who have lost 40% of my income to inflation, 30% to taxes and can't afford to hire anyone to help me with me improve my property as a consequence (which would have alleviating the pain of those people whom I paid).
They supported slavery.Which party supports flying the confederate flag the most?
Does allowing someone to fly a flag cause more pain than chattel slavery complete with lashings?
See if you try to dodge with a question, two can play that game.
But nobody supports slavery now, so it's a strawman fallacy.
What is the date of expiration so I need not waste your time with other examples that don't matter? I believed you mentioned that democrats are anti-war, but that was in the past you see.
It would be like if I accuse Trump of being homophobic based on stuff Cruz said in 2006.
No, it would be like saying the republican party was anti-pain when they circulated uncle tom's cabin and refused to ignore the suffering of the slaves. Recall the point is about consistency:
Neither faction is consistently about anything.How are the democrats not anti pain?
Coming back with "yea but they changed" proves my point.
but the democrats believe that since Putin is killing more civilians in Ukraine than the US military would kill in the name of protection, the war in Ukraine is much more like WWII than the Viet nam war
You should decide what you're arguing for. If you're arguing that the democrats always believe they are reducing pain, ceded. It's simply not a point of differentiation as republicans right-tribers believe exactly the same thing.
You asked for
How are the democrats not anti pain?
I gave you answers. They are not anti-pain because they're wrong, and if they get to use the excuse of "short term pain to reduce long term pain" then so do republicans.
In fact that reminds me of another left-tribe agenda point that certainly caused unwanted dissatisfaction ('pain'). The COVID lockdowns, and lo and behold their excuse was exactly that short term vs long term average.
The truth is that left-tribers believe what they're told to believe and justify it later. Empathy may be the most common emotion at the root but anger at perceived injustice is definitely in there and it easily turns to rage. This is no different from republicans or any other group of humans.
The real asymmetry is the gap between reality and perception between the two factions. You know, because they're zoned out on mainstream propaganda. You must believe in that sort of thing because you accused me of being brainwashed in a similar manner.
Whatever they may believe the fact is that ceding Donetsk and Luhansk after an internationally overseen referendum would have averted war but most left-tribers and many republicans would be outraged by the notion because the deep state is gaining enormously by this war both in terms of money and cementing US hegemony.
They can call themselves the party of divine righteousness but that doesn't make everyone else devils be default and that is exactly what you implied by threatening to write of the right-tribe as sadists (still shaking my head at that, you must be very desperate for attention; which I guess you got).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But name me one democrat policy they believe in that increases unwanted pain undeniably.Name one republican one that does. No one is going to admit that.Here are some GOP policies that undeniably increase unwanted pain:
- Abortion bans
- Legalized AR 15s (which creates more mass shootings)
- Not supporting Medicare for all (including for the undocumented)
- Separating families with at least one undocumented parent
- Not supporting government paid for college
All of those would be denied.
I would personally deny #5, which is not to imply I have nothing to say about the others; but anyone who believes failing to pay for someone else's higher education constitutes an "undeniable" increase in "unwanted pain" is a lunatic.
Every dollar the government steals could have averted unwanted pain.
A more meaningful label for what I oppose than "democrats".Then just say you don't like left wing politicians then.
I wouldn't use the term "deep state" if it was identical to "left wing politicians".
There are honest left-wingers, but they don't seem to make it to DC. AOC and Rashida Tlaib are probably examples. Dangerously misinformed, yes; but not deep state. RFK, definitely not deep state.
Pro lifers being pro lifers isn't a tribe.
Yet you said:
Like if I asked the goal of the pro life tribe
Neither faction is consistently about anything.How are the democrats not anti pain?
They supported slavery. They are now pro-war and their leaders have cut off any attempt at a negotiated peace in Ukraine. Your pain theory fails to explain this. My deep state theory explains it easily.
A Christian theocrat party would be consistently literalist, and if that means stoning people to death for adultery
and yet Jesus explicitly stopped that from happening...?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Opposing the democrat party.Why would they oppose the democrat party on all the issues that they do?
Confusing cause and effect, everyone who happened to oppose the people in the other tribe joined this tribe (and vice versa). Evolving through time with no overriding principle.
What is the deep state?
A more meaningful label for what I oppose than "democrats". It is a monster whose body is the colossus of government corruption and whose head are war mongering CIA types who what USA to become and remain the hegemon. Motivations and connections are unclear and may never be proven, but as gas can be inferred by wind there is something that moves these institutions that does not come from the obvious democratic pressures.
No voting bloc told them to lie about WMDs, arm the Taliban, arm cartels, stage a false flag at Tonkin, back Pakistan over India, engineer a conspiracy to kidnap a governor, be unable to account for billions in spending, send lists of people to censor to social media companies, blow up the Baltic Pipeline, and the list just goes on and on and on.
Is it Congress
There are many beneficiaries in congress. It's easier to point out the ones who are above suspicion.
I'm talking about in terms of morality.
Most people haven't had a concise moral thought in their lives. They just absorb a long list of dos and don't and then follow their emotions.
People have contradictory moralities, if there is any overarching pattern in any large group it is extremely vague and has many exceptions. Even with agreed upon values conflict can occur through difference is pursuit and over issues of trust (as I said).
Like if I asked the goal of the pro life tribe, the response I would expect wouldn't be, "to defeat the pro choice tribe", but instead, it would be, "to prevent the homicide of unborn babies". That's what the pro lifers want.
You give a category defined by the moral belief. It is tautological that they have a consistent moral belief, but they aren't a tribe and they know as well as everyone else that you can't make a tribe around a single issue without becoming irrelevant. At least not in this system. Even if you could very few people have only one controversial issue of interest.
What does the right tribe want in terms of morality?
There is no valid generalization other than the obvious and therefore trite. They want peace, love, and all the good things in life same as anyone else. Or even more generally they want to lead lives of significance free from unnecessary suffering.
The right-tribe doesn't need to be pro-pain to oppose the left-tribe. They need only believe the left-tribe is wrong about what causes the greater pain over the longest period.So your argument is that the right is consistently anti-long term pain whereas the democrats are consistently anti short term pain?
No, I pointed out that there were more possibilities than taking the inverse position just because their opponents say they are for something (or you say they are for something).
Neither faction is consistently about anything. There is no cohesive moral framework. If there was the world wouldn't be a mess and debating wouldn't be relegated to a tiny number of people in dwindling communities online.
I'm not religious, but that would be up to the Christain theocrats to answer because they believe in God and the afterlife.
Ok.... and they may very well decide that socialism is bad because A) it doesn't help the poor, and B) doesn't grant grace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That is a strong example but there are many who would deny it.Trans surgeries
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But name me one democrat policy they believe in that increases unwanted pain undeniably.
Name one republican one that does. No one is going to admit that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
A republican is a member of the republican party, a political organization in the United States of America.What does that political organization consistently stand for?
Opposing the democrat party.
What issue(s) make you a democrat?
The issue of wanting exert political power to bring about my agenda.
Why would an anti war anti government libertarian want to be in the same faction as a Neo con that wants more money for the military?
They (the libertarian) sees that the deep state is currently puppeting the democrat party. That the deep state also wants more money for the military. That's not quite right, they want more money for military contractors.
I sometimes laugh at my younger self. I actually thought "we couldn't be in Iraq to steal oil, we're not actually taking the oil".... FYI the republican party was the deep state puppet at that time.
No, what the deep state was mining in Iraq and Afghanistan was not oil, it was US dollars (via inflation and taxes). Turns out Ukraine has reserves too. In fact anywhere in the world with war is very good for a certain subset of very wealthy and influential people who happen to be running that mainstream media you accused me of being programmed by. They really like it when terrorism is defined as "political violence other than ours".
What a coincidence that wars just happen to start as soon as the democrat party controls the executive branch...
They have different interests, so they should split up.
That isn't the game.
People on the left don't think the right is lying about their beliefs.
Yes they do, specifically they think the right is racist and lying when thy say they aren't, misogynist and lying when they say they aren't, bigoted against sexual deviancy and lying when they say they aren't.
The right tribe attacks ideas and policy, not character (on average over the past 20 years, again changing for the worse).
It important to note there is a distinction between what either side thinks of opposing leadership vs the general voting bloc. They have always despised each other's leaders and it is currently at the "execute them for treason" level. I am talking about what the average X-triber thinks of the average Y-triber.
I'm asking what the right wing tribe wants.
To defeat the left-tribe.
So if the left is going to be anti pain consistently because unwanted pain is bad, what would be the right's justification for supporting pain in the instances that they do? There are 2 sides to every coin.
The right-tribe doesn't need to be pro-pain to oppose the left-tribe. They need only believe the left-tribe is wrong about what causes the greater pain over the longest period.
Even if they agreed on that the tribes could disagree on the grounds of honesty, such as the value of democracy. Both tribes claim to be fighting for it. When a left-triber says "we have to save our democracy" the right-triber says "Yea, that's why you need to be stopped". They agree democracy is good, and they agree on the definition of democracy; they just no longer trust each other.
The right-tribe thinks the left-tribe works to leave election vulnerable to fraud and then other elements commit the fraud (and other cheating). The left-tribe thinks the right-tribe will end elections and start with arrests and kangaroo courts if they get in power again (ironically the left-tribe is arresting and using kangaroo courts to prevent this).
Consistent theocrats want the government to force people to live religious lives and if that means high taxes to help the poor, so be it. Whether or not it helps the poor is irrelevant; the goal of a theocrat is to cause people to go to heaven since heaven is eternal, and if that means making life horrible on earth for 80 years out of the billions of years of eternity, so be it. A consistent theocrat couldn't campaign on that because people don't really value the afterlife compared to their life on earth even if they claim to.
When your foundation is riddled with contradictions there is no such thing as a correct version of christian theocracy. You advancing one particular interpretation as if it is the only one is silly.
There is nothing in the bible that unequivocally requires or supports socialism. The opposite, if it's the soul that matters and grace save souls then there are (better) reasons in the bible to assume that government force pollutes the purity of compassion. Jesus asked a man to sell everything, he didn't force him. If the man could be saved be being forced, then why do we supposedly have free will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I can understand that rewarding failure produces more failure, but wealth redistribution is a common government practice.
X produces failure, but it is a common practice.
So the question to ask, to see if my concepts are valid is this: Is failure a common outcome? (The answer is yes, I see them begging every time I go through the city that has voted democrat for 40 years straight)
It can be improved in many ways, but to say that we shouldnt have any kind of government help for the poor is a bit strange.
That is an understatement. It is so ineffective and susceptible to corruption and petty tyranny that reform is madness. All existing apparatus must be destroyed, the foundation re-poured, and then public charity and infrastructure can be built upon the correct paradigm.
Ultimately morality is practical. First do justice, then do good; because if you think you can do good through injustice you're wrong.
The fact governments steal is intrinsically linked to government corruption. If they could not steal their corruption and failure would cause people to stop paying. That choice is the foundation of a proper government that could be improved upon in many ways.
I am not sure how that would work out.
For fifty years after the civil war the federal government barely did anything (by today's standards). We know the world doesn't fall apart, in fact buying power goes up exponentially. If not interrupted (by government action at the turn of the century which caused the great depression) it is plausible we would be post-scarcity in several sectors instead of regressing.
Reverting to that is much more rational than trying communism out for the 20th time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If governments could be trusted to help the poor then a hundred million people wouldn't have starved to death in countries trying to implement socialism.Well, governments usually try to help the poor.
They usually say they want to help the poor when reelection is an issue.
It doesnt always turn out well.
It never turns out well when failure is rewarded and the person spending the money knows he/she has nothing to lose if the money is wasted. Some organizational methods in government work better than others, none are efficient compared to self-interest, and those ones which are slightly efficient are not useful to the corrupt.
So who, according to you, can better help the poor?
1.) I reject the hidden premise "Whatever helps the poor (or any other contextually suffering person) the best is the correct course of action"
The error with this principle (even as personal morality) is that it doesn't qualify the harm done. If you can buy a poor man a sandwich by stealing a $1000 from a rich man you shouldn't do it. Even if you had the right (which you don't) and even if you think a rich man can afford to live without a $1000 it is a bad idea because as soon as you tolerate such waste you create a point of infection for corruption.
Even goodwill and charity must yield to the cold hard facts. It isn't the thought that counts. It's the outcome that counts. Walking into a homeless shelter and scattering money around is more likely to do good than paying taxes which end up in the pockets of people who own companies dedicated to navigating government bureaucracy (up to and including essential bribery).
2.) The best help for the poor is the best help for the sick: Stay healthy. Attack the cause of the problem, not the symptoms. Ask not how to help the poor. Ask how to increase production, because if you increase production enough there will be no more poor. There have been several periods in recent history where there were so few in true poverty in certain places that there were essentially "no poor". We (the western world) are wrecking it and corrupt governments and their proxies in the corporate world (including big tech and media) are doing their utmost to hide how poor they're making everyone and all the multifaceted ways they're doing it.
They love to quote a statistic about how the rich are getting richer, what they don't tell you is that they're being paid by those people getting richer because they want anyone who might question how they're getting rich to have a very red(orange) herring to chase.
2.) From another angle: The best help for "the poor" is themselves, on average the best person to look after John Doe's interests is John Doe. People rarely need help wanting better for themselves, they need opportunities. Opportunities are not just job openings and education. Those can be traps and the promised money may be stolen or become useless.
Millions of people have been cheated by lies about higher education and would be even more impoverished than they currently are if that debt was collected <- FALSE, well somewhat true, but this is where the heart of the deception is. You see they are paying for it, we all are. When you steal money (by printing) and loan it to students who gain nothing productive from it that's wasted value. It pays for useless buildings and useless administrators. Any entity public or private who is rewarded for failing will fail harder next time. That is why Universities (despite being private) are failing horribly. When they fail the government guarantees loans (steals money to pay them) and they fail harder. That is why the health care system is failing horribly (despite being private). When they fail the government guarantees insurance (steals money to pay them). That is why the housing market is failing horribly (despite being private). When it fails the government guarantees loans and bails out banks.
If there wasn't mountainous waste growing exponentially around us the poor would fix their own problems. The things the poor need would be more affordable, which means the living wage would be lower, which means there would be more jobs available.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Not a christian (anymore) and not the one you were talking to, but couldn't help but point out the blindingly obvious: Socialism is government taking your money, not giving money to the poor. If governments could be trusted to help the poor then a hundred million people wouldn't have starved to death in countries trying to implement socialism.The bible says to sell all you have and give to the poor. The theocrat could therefore endorse socialism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Oh no! such high stakes. You might decide to be uncharitable in your views if someone doesn't engage.If no republican can attempt to define what a republican consistently stands for in 24 hours, I'm going to assume the democrats are the anti unwanted pain party and the republicans are the pro unwanted pain party (so they would be a sadistic party; a party who has a principled stance for sadisism).
A republican is a member of the republican party, a political organization in the United States of America. I'm a registered democrat because several important local positions were likely to be won by democrats and affecting the democratic primary candidates was the only way to influence local policy, so I guess you shouldn't have tagged me if you want republicans to answer.
As for the right-tribe definition, there isn't a precise one because it is an arbitrary alliance formed under the pressure of a winner-takes-all system.
The difference between being unable to precisely define a woman and being unable to precisely define what every single person in a political faction believes is that "woman" used to have a precise definition while it is practically impossible for everyone in a political faction to want the same things for the same reasons or to have the same beliefs.
You're demanding to know the color of "Fruit" and comparing it to someone claiming that apples can be oranges if someone wants them to be.
"Party of sadism" if you can't think your way out of that without help there isn't much anyone can do to help you but I'll try:
It has been noted by several social 'scientists' that the right-tribe's perception of the beliefs and predictions about the left-tribe are far more accurate than the inverse.
Long story short: The right-tribe thinks they are the good guys and knows the left-tribe also thinks they are the good guys. The left-tribe thinks they are the good guys and thinks the right-tribe knows they're the baddies and are lying about it.
This asymmetry has been closing for a few years now, as exemplified by the attitudes of several commentators and the rise of the pedophile paranoia. In other words, the left-tribe has been rather consistently Alex-Jones-like while the right-tribe has not been but is becoming more so.
So you are right the left-tribe would happily claim the title of "anti-pain faction", but only the ignorant would assume that anyone who refused to join the left-tribe must want the opposite of whatever the left-tribe claimed to want. Everybody thinks they're right, it's a tautology. Anyone who hasn't taken that for granted as truly ancient news is an intellectual infant.
Created:
Posted in:
ebuc almost exclusively babbles nonsense and any user who engages with the nonsense (other than to mock it) is probably a sock puppet account.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I didn't even read what you said
I think you did.
but I know it's dribble you got from the mainstream media (right wing edition (FOX and OAN)).
I don't need FOX and OAN to differentiate between two buildings over two kilometers apart.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
All trees are plants, but not all plants are trees.What's your point?
Even if all terrorism was violence to affect a political change, that does not mean all violence to affect political change must be terrorism. 9/11 was terrorism because it used innocent people in planes to kill innocent people in private buildings with no conceivable hope of achieving military victory, rather the only possible point was to terrorized the general population.
If they had hijacked military/government planes and smashed them into military/governmental targets it would still be violence to affect a political change but it would no longer be terrorism.
When a word means everything it becomes useless.Terrorism doesn't mean everything and I didn't say it did.
You used a subverted definition that means more than it used to and thus became morally undetermined. The way you use the word, no wrongdoing is logically implied, those who subverted you simply hope that prejudices about the word carry on through momentum.
In the same way that the trans lobby attempts to capture "gender discrimination" to wield cultural and legal power, those who use the word "terrorism" in this way are attempting to annex the negative reaction to the word by redefining it knowing that the emotional baggage will echo for a time.I don't believe the Matt Walsh types are terrorists.
This is a non-sequitur.
If violence for a political aim is terrorism then some terrorism is good. Such as the terrorism that freed the world from feudalism and ended slavery in most of the world.That's because the victors write the history books. Trump isn't history yet, so whether or not Jan 6 gets viewed as good or not has yet to be seen.
Good and evil are objective. More specifically any claim of good and evil that is not objective is useless to discuss. Victors may write history books, but they are not always believed or objectively correct. If your thesis is that all political violence is terrorism until victory at which point it becomes a heroic war, that's a cynical dodge and not at all the point people will take when you say "Jan 6 was terrorism".
In a democratic republic if any significant number of people are motivated to travel thousands of miles to attack a government building that means power has become too centralized.Or it means the mainstream media has become too powerful (with Jan 6; the mainstream media was Fox News and OAN).
Or maybe a religion, mass hysteria, etc... etc... There are plenty of reasons people are angry for no good reason and blame the wrong people. Just because it's not always true doesn't mean it's not generally true.
The government should be afraid of popular uprisings in general.What a weird way to defend BLM riots!
What a non-sequitur. Just because nazis can vote doesn't mean defending democracy is defending nazis.
Jan 6 was not terrorism and neither was the attack on the whitehouse. Attacking the government is never terrorismWhat was 9/11 then?
Terrorism. Attacking the Pentagon was still terrorism because they took a bunch of innocent hostages with them.
Democracies are stable only so long as people believe a ballot works better than a bullet.Well, no matter what happens with the 2024 election; there is going to be violence in the streets.
Most likely, and calling some riots peaceful while calling others terrorism and then locking up everyone you can find on trumped up charges greatly contributed to that probability.
It gives a false sense of security to left-wing rioters and convinces right-wing rioters that there was no point in being unarmed if they'll be treated as if they were armed regardless.
(in the case of the USA power back to the states, if it happens at a state level power back to the counties, etc.. etc...)What does states right have to do with Jan 6?
The people at Jan 6 saw what was happening federally as an unprecedented injustice and threat to their rights. If the federal government wasn't constantly wielding enormous power over education, healthcare, the economy, and the public discourse, there would be no (perceived) life and death struggle for the presidency.
Left-tribers and right-tribers agree that having the wrong president is an existential threat. They have been acting like it was an existential threat for the last decade. That means violence and eventually war.
Abortion, taxes, "DEI", etc.. etc.. all become nationwide issues BECAUSE policy flows from DC. If the supreme court for instance had never centralized power by their original decision in Roe v Wade it would have remained a state issue. Then people would go riot at their state capitols, but not very many of them because states are on average much more unified.
It was the perception that Trump was a looming fascist threat that caused left-tribers to decide that cheating in the election was for the greater good. Although the perception of his racism is indeed manufactured it was manufactured by people getting rich off the enormous money flowing through the federal government.
If DC wasn't a wretched hive of scum and villainy Trump might never have been elected, if he was he would just be a kind of humorous celebrity president who threatened nobody. Furthermore without a hundred three letter agencies under his command, without the FBI to arrest people, unable to deploy troops without an insurrection, he would not have been a threat even if they believed he was evil.
The oval office has become the iron throne, and it was never meant to be that. Everyone is fighting for it because they see it as power to protect themselves and promote their own idea of the good. It is inevitable that people fight for power, but it was meant to be decentralized and democratic so that it was much more difficult to abuse power or mislead people.
The CHOP was sedition, but sedition should be allowed.I don't like US separatist movements.
That doesn't entitle you to mislabel them as terrorists.
Your quote responding to me:
My full quote and the context, emphasis added:
[TheUnderdog] Jan 6 was not done by half the country; just the Jan 6 protestors that entered the white house.[ADOL] It was left-wing insurrectionists who entered the white house, and it was before Jan 6 2021. I can't believe in three pages no one corrected you.[TheUnderdog](even though you said from the 1st quote that Jan 6 was done by left wingers).[ADOL]I did not.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It was left-wing insurrectionists who entered the white house, and it was before Jan 6 2021.Nope. It was MAGA republicans.
This is incorrect.
Violence for political change is not "terrorism"This is incorrect.
I reject that definition as it is subverted.
You know, like 9/11.9/11 was violence done for political change; to get America to stop invading the middle east.
All trees are plants, but not all plants are trees.
When they attacked a federal court house that was political violence and revolutionary activity, it was not terrorism. When they firebombed random people's shops and cars and shot people for wearing a MAGA cap. That was terrorism.All of that is terrorism.
When a word means everything it becomes useless. In the same way that the trans lobby attempts to capture "gender discrimination" to wield cultural and legal power, those who use the word "terrorism" in this way are attempting to annex the negative reaction to the word by redefining it knowing that the emotional baggage will echo for a time.
If violence for a political aim is terrorism then some terrorism is good. Such as the terrorism that freed the world from feudalism and ended slavery in most of the world.
Between the options of accepting the subverted definition and having to fight an uphill battle with people who feel more than they think I choose to reject the subverted definition.
I think it's a contradiction, unless you believe that the government should be terrified of left wing uprisings but that Jan 6 was not a left wing uprising
There is no contradiction to speak of. Jan 6 was not terrorism and neither was the attack on the whitehouse. Attacking the government is never terrorism and government buildings qualify as "the government".
The government should be afraid of popular uprisings in general. The existence of popular uprisings at all means (in most cases) there is a serious problem that was created by government incompetence or malice.
In a democratic republic if any significant number of people are motivated to travel thousands of miles to attack a government building that means power has become too centralized. I do not think the theory of the founders is perfect, but that is their theory and why they explicitly wanted the population to be a dangerous factor in the estimation of any level of government.
Democracies are stable only so long as people believe a ballot works better than a bullet. The founds knew that, and it is a fact. So regardless of who is right morally or practically correct if you want the system to persist as intended without collapsing into a facade over some form of centralized tyranny you want governments to be terrified of popular uprisings and to respond to popular uprisings by decentralizing (in the case of the USA power back to the states, if it happens at a state level power back to the counties, etc.. etc...)
The CHOP was sedition, but sedition should be allowed. Washington state and the city of Seattle should never have been put into the position where they think their problems come from over 3000km away in DC. Trump was asked to declare CHOP an insurrection and send in the military. He did not. He was acting in accordance to the plan of the founders by deciding that whatever his motivations.
Calling it all terrorism and locking people up for protesting is the act of a centralized tyranny and our democracy will not survive it.
(even though you said from the 1st quote that Jan 6 was done by left wingers).
I did not.
But I don't expect to change your mind because you have a party to stick too; my mind is free.
Yet you use subverted definitions and get basic facts wrong. Constrained by the whims of other people is bad, constrained by logic is good.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Jan 6 was not done by half the country; just the Jan 6 protestors that entered the white house.
It was left-wing insurrectionists who entered the white house, and it was before Jan 6 2021. I can't believe in three pages no one corrected you.
I agree with you; Jan 6 was terrorism.
It was the opposite. You've been subverted. The definition of "terrorism" given in modern dictionaries implies that every revolution was an act of terror.
Violence for political change is not "terrorism" it's as old as time and the origin of almost every nation-state including the United States of America.
Terrorism used to mean "violence targeting the general populace (or most innocent) for the purpose of disrupting civilized life through fear". You know, like 9/11.
There is a better argument that the Dresden bombings or the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2 were terrorism than unarmed people attacking their own government building.
Trying to terrify purported tyrants has no meaningful difference from freedom-fighting. Governments should be terrified of popular uprisings. Things are better that way.
In Seattle where a section of the city was declared (by the insurrectionists) to no longer be part of the United States of America, that was sedition. It was not terrorism. When they attacked a federal court house that was political violence and revolutionary activity, it was not terrorism. When they firebombed random people's shops and cars and shot people for wearing a MAGA cap. That was terrorism.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
[Double_R] and then reported to the public which the AJC was describing[ADOL] Ohhhh realllly. Why not link to that then?[Double_R] Never before has any state audit ever released a thousands name long list to show the public all of the voters they verified.
Again you prove yourself too dishonest to waste time with.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Question: If your goal is to destroy a country's democracy and rule of law, how do you accomplish that?Answer: By making the people of that country believe their democracy and rule of law is already destroyed. If you can accomplish that then they will justify destroying for you as a patriotic attempt to save it.
Question: If you think people are trying to undermine trust in the election system do you:
A) Make absolutely sure to follow all election laws and procedures, cut no corners, provide full transparency, and reiterate that auditable elections are a shared goal
B) Gaslight anyone who doubts the election, call the traitors, lock them up under bizarre interpretations of law, inform media companies that you would prefer if they censor counter-narratives, and every single fucking time someone finds an inconsistency in publicly available data immediately remove that information from public view.
I didn't think elections were stolen until (B) occurred. Now it's far too late to expect trust from me or anyone else who has been paying attention.
But you believe in the rule of law...
I believe in justice, which law may not be; but I understand why people abide by a system so long as it is fair and allows progress without violence. When the system becomes a weapon that can no longer be said. The question is when is violence against the state justified, and when they don't care about equitable application of the laws that is an instant: NOW
Complete bullshit.
Entirely true.
The article states:"Election investigators found just four absentee ballots in the 2020 presidential election from voters who had died, all of them returned by relatives."
An assertion isn't an example of anything but an assertion. There were 5 examples in the article, that assertion of someone else's assertion was not one of them.
but when a state audits it's own election it doesn't look at 5 ballots and call it a day, it looks at all of them or at the very least a significant amount
Maybe, but like I originally said; I've never seen those lists debunked and I am sure if they could they would.
Hint for those looking for concrete examples to support your thesis. If you have thousands of instances fitting your theory and four that don't, it does not make sense to use those four that contradict your thesis.
You trying to pretend that the article says they looked only at 5 examples and found 4 instances had to be the stupidest argument you've ever made here.
I have no idea what they looked at beyond those 5 examples. Thus I have not seen lists of thousands debunked. YOU GAVE a sample size of 5 and 80% of it is fraud. Only absolute idiots would fail to notice that that examples given do not support the title or assertions of the state, but then that is probably the target audience.
you pretend that's the point I was making
The record is clear. Almost nothing could convince me or any objective observer that you didn't just google for an article, read the headline, send it; and then do exactly what you predicted I would do; namely ignore the examples.
the "1" example I was talking about from the very beginning was the review that the state of Georgia performed
If there was such a review, why isn't there a list of thousands of explanations? I have not seen it, and the simplest explanation is that I have not seen it because it was not published because:
A) They didn't do it.
B) They did it, and the results showed significant fraud which was suppressed
Now if the "one example" you were talking about was some kind of audit of thousands of questionable mail-in-ballots, then why did you say you could find hundreds of others? Are you claiming you can find hundreds of audits? Because right now your count is zero. (rumors of audits are not do not qualify as audits, audits have published results that can be reviewed by the public)
and then reported to the public which the AJC was describing
Ohhhh realllly. Why not link to that then?
even the evidence against your proposition qualifies to you as evidence for it.
I'm not the one who posted four examples of mail-in-ballot fraud and acted like it proved the election was secure.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This is a propaganda war and the adoption of weaponized lawfare and terms like 'insurrection' is necessary.When people are bombing you calling it a financial audit, then it doesn't matter what a financial audit is. You need to start bombing back.This is exactly why MAGA is so destructive to the country.But at least you admit that you are using nonsense terms like inserectionists and bs legal arguments not because you believe them or because they make sense, but because you see yourself as being engaged in some kind of battle.
The fact that you don't see a battle is what makes you a failure. A citizen in a democracy has a duty to identify and oppose rising tyranny.
What a concept, I'm sure that will work out just fine. Let's do it in West Virginia. All juries are trustworthy right?The location of the trial should be determined by the proper legal process, just like the trial in Florida with a Trump appointed judge.
It is unacceptable for accusation relating to federal crimes and against nationwide political leaders to be decided by a tiny brainwashed minority that happens to live in a federal district.
Whatever legal process leads to that state of affairs is by this argument improper.
You have actually managed to convince yourself that you caught me being dishonest
It wasn't hard.
As a reminder, here is the post where this whole thing began
To the potentially honest reader, please follow the link and decide for yourself:
[Double_R] We would have confirmed cases of dead people voting in the tens of thousands.[ADOL] There were lists thousands long. I have never seen those lists debunked[Double_R] Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless. I could provide literally hundreds more but that would be a monumental waste of time as you've already demonstrated:
"alleged-dead-georgia-voters-found-alive-and-well-after-2020-election" contains a single example of a claimed 'dead voter' being alive (extreme coincidence of same name and address of relative). It contains four cases of election fraud.
The title of the article is a lie "voters", plural; only one example was given. 5 total cases examined, 4 fraudulent ballots; one "alive and well".
4 > 1
1 < Thousands
[Double_R] It never ceases to amaze me how election deniers think showing a handful of examples of fraud disproves the narrative that this was a fair and secure election.
TL;DR:
Double_R : Here is an example (gives five examples, only one of the five supporting his claim, four of the examples support my claim), you will claim it is meaningless.
2 seconds later....
Double_R : Those examples are meaningless.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
So a page boy cannot hold his position if he was involved in insurrection but a President should be able to?
Said no such thing. Just pointed out you were citing insurrectionists.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The Colorado Supreme Court report says
I don't think citing insurrectionist former judges helps your case.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You have no way of knowing.I have no need of knowing?
Yes you do if you use it as a premise, and you did by implying Trump controlling anything is undemocratic.
Actually, if Trump is not allowed to be president, then we have more democracy. Trump lost popular vote twice. People dont want him.
There was no popular vote, the numbers you are referring to are a meaningless statistic because that is not the game and everyone knows that is not the game. You don't know whether people want him (meaning a majority), yet you claimed they don't.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's not what current polling showsLet me know when Trump wins popular vote, not what the polls are.Cute deflectionThanks. I like being cute.
I remember pointing this out to you multiple times:
When the rules of the game are X, and everybody knows the rules; you can't copy paste results and pretend like they apply to a hypothetical situation where the rules are Y.
In game theory an indispensable axiom is that the player's knowledge of the rules affects their behavior.
You don't know what the popular vote would be if the popular vote did matter because that experiment has never been done. An enormous number of people could very well not vote for Trump knowing:
A) Their state has no chance of giving Trump electors
B) Their state has no chance of not giving Trump electors
That effect could be perfectly symmetric or it might not be. You have no way of knowing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I like how people remember consent only when its about sex.
I don't. Our moral culture could do with a lot more worrying about consent.
It could also do with a lot less "Morality is arbitrary, really."
People may prove their professed morality arbitrary by not giving a shit about contradictions in it, but that's a flaw with their theory not the concept itself. I see it no differently than failing a math test and saying "math answers are arbitrary, really". Yea, when you get it wrong and don't care.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A) You call the judges that ruled against Trump "insurrectionists".
Yes, and many more besides.
Whatever your position on the issue is
My position is that when someone uses force on the grounds of enforcing a law, whatever interpretation they are using must apply to them. If you allow a double standard you lose.
If they say walking down a hall is a felony offense and you say "no it isn't that's silly so I'm not going to charge you with felonies" then you end up in prison while they don't. It's a battle of legitimacy, the objective application of hypothetical (but non-existent) just law is a long lost cause.
This is a propaganda war and the adoption of weaponized lawfare and terms like 'insurrection' is necessary. Killing isn't murder in war.
there is objectively a major split amongst judges and constitutional scholars on this issue.
The only split that matters is between the sane and honest vs the insane or dishonest.
You are clearly not arguing in good faith when you say this, because you're not stupid enough to believe a complex legal ruling by a judge qualifies as an insurrection.
When people are bombing you calling it a financial audit, then it doesn't matter what a financial audit is. You need to start bombing back.
B) No, they won't convict him of anything. The evidence against him is overwhelming, that's why he is on trial.
Sure, and while we're at it remember the Poles started WW2 by attacking that German radio station.
But clearly facts and the rule of law don't matter to you or you wouldn't be so willing to dismiss such an obvious case.
4 > 1, denying that is what dismissing evidence looks like.
C) No, it's not the only possible response, just the one you would like to see. Republicans could, you know, accept the idea that those who broke the law should be investigated and prosecuted, not just when their name is Hunter Biden.
What a concept, I'm sure that will work out just fine. Let's do it in West Virginia. All juries are trustworthy right?
The things "is" this way is because people like you want it to be.
No, I wanted secure elections. Then none of this would have happened. Every step along the way things have escalated because people like you hate who you're told to hate.
four [examples of dead voters] is still greater than one [report studying dead voters and concluding that it's statistically non existent].You can't possibly believe this is clever to keep repeating.
The truth need not be witty. Every time you lie about it is another reminder that you should not be treated as a good-faith debater.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Do facts and logic factor anywhere in your analysis of how the system should work
"Should"
That's a lot more complicated than "is" and there is no indication that you or many others can handle "is".
For instance, four is still greater than one.
Created: