Total posts: 4,837
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's basically identity fraud, they pretend to be someone who died, doesn't live there anymore, or is extremely unlikely to vote and thus discover the fraud.This didn't happen on a big scale, since when I vote, I have to state my name and if I'm dead, I can't put in someone else's name.
Do you know what "pretend" means? Dead people don't write down their names. Living people who are falsely claiming to be dead people write down dead people's names.
But he won in 2020
You have no way of knowing that.
Our election security is fine
This is false, and ever I find that the only people who think this know almost nothing about the theory and practice of elections as they were done in 2020 and before.
if Trump never claimed the election was rigged, the right would accept the results.
What the right would or would not do is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
When I worked as an election official in the midterms a significant number of people were flagged as having requested a mail in ballot and said either they didn't request a ballot or it didn't arrive in time. One did this on purpose, seeing if we would detect an attempted double vote.So out of the thousands of people you saw vote, just one person did a double vote?
Not thousands, hundreds, and only in person voters. No one was knowingly allowed to double vote, someone merely tried as a "white hacker". Election cheaters put considerably more thought into it than you appear to be. They wouldn't send in a ballot and then try to vote in person under the same name. Anyone can predict that would fail.
Yeah, that's some REAL evidence of widespread voter fraud.
1.) The number of people who told us that they had never asked for a mail in ballot yet our system recorded them requesting one roughly 0.5%. The number predicted by fraud theory (A) would be only those individuals they mistakenly identified as "never voters". If the fraud was on the scale of 5% they could make that mistake in 10% of cases and that would result in a "detection" rate of 0.5%. 5% is enough to change the outcome in most battleground states and thus federally. Therefore YES it is real evidence of relevant voter fraud.
2.) Far stronger evidence is that the left-tribe made election integrity a partisan issue. This tells any rational observer that they believe at some level of leadership that they benefit from lesser election security. The only way to benefit form lowered security is fraud.
3.) It doesn't ultimately matter if there was actually fraud or not. There are situations where trust is owed and a breach of trust must be treated as no differently from a crime. If a bank claims to have invested your money but can provide no audit trail; they must be treated as if they stole your money. If a scientist claims to have made a discovery, but refuses to explain his experiments or share his data that conclusion must be treated as fraudulent. If a country claims to be democratic, but doesn't seem to care if anyone can prove the election was free and fair, that country must be treated like a banana republic (not a democracy).
If you want Trump to win in 2024, focus on the future, not 2020.
Some people define insanity as doing the same thing over again while expecting a different result. The way to avoid insanity is then to learn from what past. I will not forget about 2022, 2020, 2016, or any other election; or and other event from which truth may be inferred going back to the beginning of the universe.
There is no hope for a better future without learning from the past.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The system is rigged. Information is controlled. Ballots are harvested and probably forged.If you REALLY believe the election is rigged, don't vote in it. Why vote in an election where they will take some of your votes and turn them into democrat votes? You would be helping the democrat party if that happens.
That's not the most probable significant mechanism of cheating. They don't turn my ballot into a democrat ballot. It's basically identity fraud, they pretend to be someone who died, doesn't live there anymore, or is extremely unlikely to vote and thus discover the fraud.
A). They use the information of a real person (or at least a real record in the voter registry) to request a mail in ballot, fill it out, send it back in. In every case I've investigated having access to someone's driver's licence number, address, and full name is sufficient information. Such information is stored by county governments, if it wasn't it wouldn't be possible to verify information. In my county (I can't say which for anonymity) the database is unencrypted and present on every SD card used by every poll book.
If a single one was copied it would provide anyone everything they needed to know to request a ballot for anyone in the county.
When considering that mechanism continuing to vote is vital, if they attempt to request a mail in ballot in my name it would be flagged in the system when I went to vote in person (or asked for a ballot myself). Enough of that would force your so called "independents" to admit something was up. At the very least I can turn in a provisional ballot which has a chance of causing my true intentions to be counted.
When I worked as an election official in the midterms a significant number of people were flagged as having requested a mail in ballot and said either they didn't request a ballot or it didn't arrive in time. One did this on purpose, seeing if we would detect an attempted double vote. This is the only pattern of evidence that could be expected with (A).
(A) has a minimum conspiracy size of 1; that is only 1 person at a time is needed to move the process forward, no plans need to be discussed and no identity leaking coordination is necessary.
B.) Another mechanism which is possible with a small conspiracy sizes (perhaps as little as 2) is ballot swapping after separation yet before the official counting. The conspirators identify undesirable ballots and remove X of them, throwing them out or destroying them. They then replace them with an equal number of ballots with the preferred choices.
This method requires access to authentic blank ballots, this is not difficult; especially given the enormous excess that are printed to be mailed, much greater than the number returned.
The main inhibitor to this method would be surveillance in the counting room, so long as there is constant video of the ballot envelopes of high enough quality it would be very risky to try and bring in or remove ballots from the room much less presort.
However, in many instances there is plenty of reason to believe that no such cameras exist, or that they are not constantly recording.
Another variant of this method is the opening of ballot envelopes before the arrive at the counting center. Unwanted ballots are discarded but the accompanying form is retained. If the conspiracy is large enough they can be smuggled into the post separation storage areas. Otherwise they can be repacked and brought in as normal mail in ballots.
In this case I would indeed be providing a form which they can use to steal my vote, however if I vote in person there is no form to steal.
-------
Even excluding either of those methods, not voting is the one way to assure defeat even if they don't cheat. Thus it would be important to continue voting regardless for no other purpose than to force them to continue cheating.
So long as they are cheating, it's possible that they fail. They could chicken out, not have enough ground support, be caught (best case scenario).
Also it is possible that the cheaters become weary of the constant doomsaying, say if Ron DeSantis is the next great satan, they may realize that the media is just doing this to anyone who opposes the deep state and it's nothing unique with Trump. If they loose motivation to cheat, obviously the good guys would still lose if they just stopped voting.
Finally, if there isn't much cheating it's important to keep voting.
In conclusion, the game theory is straightforward and clear: Keep voting, no matter what is going on in what degree it is critical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What rock have you been hiding under? They didn't even answer questions forty years ago. Now they'll say your racist or fake news just for asking.If politicians don't answer questions like how people can use frozen embryos to avoid taxes, then they end up losing a lot of independent voters next election. The job of journalists is to ask questions from leaders and to hold them accountable.
No, they wouldn't let you write off your taxes. If you went to court they would say the zygotes aren't dependents (after all I'm sure they don't let you write off kids you had in Gambia and left there), and no politician loses because of independents or independent journalists.
The system is rigged. Information is controlled. Ballots are harvested and probably forged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The law doesn't answer questions.The people making the laws would have too.
What rock have you been hiding under? They didn't even answer questions forty years ago. Now they'll say your racist or fake news just for asking.
Why provide some people food stamps but not others? Inconsistency is built into laws.Because they are poor.
and if that's a good enough excuse for the law to treat people differently, why wouldn't the fact that your kids living expenses are $5/year in cooling mean your tax write off is $5/year?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
As I said, you're already beyond legality because the law can simultaneously ban abortion and not consider a zygote a child.Why would you ban abortion if you don’t believe a zygote is a child?
The law doesn't answer questions.
They know what they're trying to do: it's to help families. If you try to cheat their intentions they'll just close any loophole they may have missed.The only way they can close the loophole is by not calling a zygote a child.
No that is not the only way. They can define a fetus as zygote -> no longer needs incubation and a child as no longer need incubation -> 18 year old.
Then they can say a fetus is a person so murder is illegal but only children you are actually raising entitle you to a tax credit. Any rule you can write in English can be a law; even (especially) the rules that don't make sense.
Why provide a tax credit for some children and not others? It’s an inconsistent application of the law.
Why provide some people food stamps but not others? Inconsistency is built into laws.
People who do think there is a duty to zygotes will probably consider your behavior immoral and try to make it illegal.This would require banning IVF.
No it wouldn't, it would only require that you cannot make more zygotes until you incubated the others and that you can never make more than 1-2 zygotes at a time.
Legally, I have a case.
I find it unlikely, but I would have to look at the particular laws in question. That's not even taking into account the fact that governments, including cops and judges, barely feel the need to follow the law to the letter. They have laws so vague and abstract that they can use them on anyone, and they will if you annoy them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Hmmm. . . I figure this plan would fail anyways. You can barely get 2 or 3 women who would be willing to do this, much less sleep with you. Ha!
Yet one could easily imagine that he wouldn't need much help in the not too distant future.
Gametes could be sold, they are sold now.
Male gametes are very cheap, and with some slight hormone or genetic modification eggs could be cheap as dirt too.
By the time we can grow artificial meat we will also have access to replacement organs or even organs that can just float and provide resources. For example a man could simply replace the Y with another copy of his X (his mother's) in a stem cell and grow a working ovary from that. Then he could have an egg generator using entirely his own DNA.
We had best start working out the morality now....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If a zygote is a human being, if a zygote is a child, then I get to freeze 100 embryos and claim 100 dependents on my taxes.
As I said, you're already beyond legality because the law can simultaneously ban abortion and not consider a zygote a child. You're appealing to abstract principle, which is good; that is how we should think but it's got little to do with the law.
In the abstract then, taxes are theft. So let's assume that "claiming a dependent" meant that some significant portion of the economy were willing to support people with large families. Whether this is a fee offset or a simple gift is semantics.
They know what they're trying to do: it's to help families. If you try to cheat their intentions they'll just close any loophole they may have missed.
You aren't supporting a hundred growing kids, you are running a 50 watts of cooling, and there probably aren't many who thought it was a responsible thing to do in the first place. People who do think there is a duty to zygotes will probably consider your behavior immoral and try to make it illegal.
So we've looked at this two ways:
Legally - You have no case, judge would just say abortion statutes have nothing to do with tax policy; maybe you could get a symbolic victory by getting him/her to admit that a zygote is not a legal dependent but they would almost certainly just say you aren't supporting the child and call protective services
Morally - You have no case, you aren't entitled to money because you have kids be they ten years old or eternal zygotes
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well I can't be too upset about it. It is already known as the city of shit. The faster left-tribers destroy their own strongholds the better.
I know some people are worried about them spreading out and ruining other places, but at least some of them must see the light after being driven away.
Created:
Taxation is theft. There is an excuse in this context that the thieves will use it for the victims good. Things like this cause the excuse to wear very very thin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I doubt the statute says "since zygotes are kids" it probably says "abortion is defined thus and is subject to these penalties", laws don't explain themselves. They just punish. They probably should be tied to an argument, but they aren't.
You also overlooked the possibility that you would be arrested for child abuse even given the humorous premise. Can't very well freeze kids legally can you?
Just like the argument would be that you must feed and educate your kids, you would have to incubate them. It's (in theory) a duty.
Created:
[IwantRooseveltagain] But I didn’t vote or support a habitual lying subversive who launched an insurrection against our democracy
You did if you voted for Obama or Biden, because they're DOJs did just that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You have it backwards, if there is enough vaccine for everyone and it is effective enough to prevent transmission there is still no moral justification since everyone who has anything to fear can protect themselves.
Logic permits only a very limited case where not taking a vaccine and then walking around could be considered a threat of aggression.
Government has no right to force people to do anything "for their own good".
Created:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
bot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The elites don’t want a civil war.
The deep state wants a fizzled independence fight desperately because that would prevent a civil war leaving them in total control.
They're trying very hard to provoke violence by wielding state and mob power abusively. Sub-critical counterattacks like Jan 6 allows them 'justify' mass arrests without it snowballing into a full civil war. It's demoralization, they want their victims to feel like they can't count on their neighbors to defend them.
The "moment of truth" would be when either they "come for the guns" or start preventing candidates from running because they aren't willing to disclaim 'peaceful divorce'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
One exception is sufficient to disprove a rule.If there was only one main issue of the day (like in the 1860s with slavery) there won't be a long term compromise. But when there are many issues of the day that are divisive (like our time), you can come up with compromises.
There were many issues back then, and policy was traded. After 160 years we remember only slavery because it was a moral issue.
I can't, I can't trade my beliefs either. No matter how helpful it would be I cannot (honestly) offer to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.You don't have too. They are official party positions. If the trans issue is big enough for you, you will never call Caitlyn Jenner a man, and the GOP leadership accepts transwomen as women so they can ban abortion
*sigh*, you don't understand because you don't understand that government is violence wrapped up in protocol.
All government policy is predicated on violence and the reason the fight for control of government is so fierce is because it is the socially acceptable way to use violence to achieve your ends.
Banning abortion means using force to attack people who try to perform an abortion.
What does it mean for a government to "declare a definition"? Nothing, did you know that SI is the official unit system of the United States of America?
You won't find any left-tribers willing to "trade" a meaningless declaration for what they see as unjust aggression. There are a few on this forum, I can find more on other forums if you want to expand the sample size. If there is no potential for using force against "misgendering" they won't be interested.
In case anyone wonders if force has been used, yes it has; people have been arrested in anglophone countries with insufficient protection of free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Resources and territory are not moral disputes.Michigan morally thought Toledo was theirs.
If they didn't change their minds about that there would have been war.
If the road forks, what compromise is there between left and right? Only smashing into the divider.Possible, but if there is a road that is in a grid format, you can take some lefts and some rights to end up at a new location.
One exception is sufficient to disprove a rule.
Just like I may value $10 and a steak, while I own just the $10 and a steak maker values both items (but owns just the steak), if I value the steak over $10 and he values the $10 over the steak, we trade, and we are both better off.
In trade, part of the trade is the abandonment of the claim of property over the item you previously considered yours.
To trade moral beliefs would imply that they could be abandoned, and there is no reason to expect that to be possible. I can't, I can't trade my beliefs either. No matter how helpful it would be I cannot (honestly) offer to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Alright, what about light implies time travel (effect preceding cause)?A spacetime diagram showing that moving faster than light implies time travel in the context of special relativity. A spaceship departs from Earth from A to C slower than ght. At B, Earth emits a tachyon, particle that travels faster than light but forward in time in Earth's reference frame. It reaches the spaceship at C. The spaceship then sends another tachyon back to Earth from C to D. This tachyon also travels forward in time in the spaceship's reference frame. This effectively allows Earth to send a signal from B to D, back in time. A longer explanation can be seen at: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13001/does-superluminal-travel-imply-travelling-back-in-time/615079#615079.
1.) The existence of tachyon or any other superluminal information transfer are not implied or required by special or general relativity
2.) Projecting the space-time axis of a moving reference frame beyond the time when it was moving is conceptually invalid. This can be seen in the fact that doing this creates and sustains the twin paradox. The twin paradox has been tested by measuring the time passing in a jet flaying around the Earth relative to the ground.
Time in the jet moved slower at a constant rate, the people on the jet perceived Earth time moving faster, not all reference frames are equal even if "absolute zero" or a "luminferous ether" may never be established or known.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
When you begin with the premise that the evidence is all manufactured,
That is a strawman. Understanding the difference between evidence and retelling is not a claim of manufacture. Theories are supported by evidence, including conspiracy theories.
Just because Tim Pool and Steven Crowder both repeat a quote from Trump (and attribute it correctly) doesn't mean Trump's statement is now independently verified twice.
Not sure why you think you're premature victory lap lends you some kind of credibility.
I've learned not to underestimate your ability to ignore the obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Compromise on moral issues solves nothing. The human heart cannot tolerate perceived injustice forever. The moral conflict itself must be solved, either by convincing the next generation, the current generation, or just killing people.There have been times when conflict was solved by compromise (like over Toledo). Michigan and Ohio both wanted it, but Michigan was offered the upper pinensula in exchange for giving up Toledo (which they agreed to).
Resources and territory are not moral disputes.
Having a compromise on the issue helps both sides get more of what they want and prevents civil war (which seems like it might happen).
You mean like it did last time? Oh wait. No it didn't prevent anything, it just allowed another two generations to live in slavery.
There are times compromise can avoid conflict. When dealing with arbitrary claims (like over land) or when dealing with a situation of mutual fear or pride such as Thucydides' trap.
For example the arms race between UK and USA after WW1 was neither a moral conflict nor a conflict over resources. It was simply a combination of fear and pride, and it was solved by taking a chill pill via the naval arms treaty.
But is abortion part of this?
I don't know, but I know that disagreement over it cannot be contained forever.
Is calling transwomen part of this if you believe they are men based on the dictionary definition for a woman?
No
People disagree on this, so there has to be a compromise.
Why do you assume that if there is a disagreement a coherent compromise must be possible?
If I say you must drink 50g of arsenic per day and you say you won't, what compromise must there be?
If the road forks, what compromise is there between left and right? Only smashing into the divider.
What is collectivist or individualist about a comprimise?
Nothing, compromise is orthogonal to (doesn't address) the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest turning you stash of paper into gold Mr S.
I finally understand a point from you, and it's right.
Crypto is better because it can't be stolen, but gold can't be devalued. Worst comes to worst you can go hide in India, Africa, South America, Indochina... ok well they seem to like gold just about anywhere. I'm saying it will buy you a hot meal so long as there are hot meals to be had.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Sigh, if you explain to me what scenario you were told or thought involved non-conventional causation, which I took to mean effect precedes cause from the context, I will try to explain to you why that scenario is formulated incorrectly or why someone might have incorrectly inferred that effect preceded cause.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
By "tests" I didn't necessarily mean any particular type of testing strategy, I mean in general objective standards of achievement.
More often the better, that way confusion or problems are detected early. Within limits you could put a bounty on catching kids up.
You might also have different flavors of teaching which students could choose between. We don't care how they learn, just that they can do something useful at the end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
If you would give a specific example (certain traveling or standing wave in certain potential) I'd be happy to analyze it for you and show you there is no need or evidence for time travel.Light is a good one.Alright, what about light implies time travel (effect preceding cause)?You’re defining time travel as effect preceding cause in reference to light. I have no idea what you’re asking of me.
Let's go back to the thing you said which caused me to comment:
All i’ll say is quantum physics doesn’t entirely play by conventional causation.
I'm asking for the scenario which doesn't play by conventional causation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Demystifying quantum mechanics is a personal crusade of mine... and by myst I mean the mysticism many people have read into it. The reality is strange, but once you accept it there are no contradictions, causation paradoxes, subjective reality etc...Does that include frame of reference?
There are two systems of thought in modern physics. Quantum mechanics and general relativity. They don't mix.
People want them to mix, they've tried to mix them, and in some attempts it kinda makes sense if you squint. However, overall there is no cohesive conceptual or mathematical treatment which includes both.
This "holy grail" has been called "unified field theory" or "theory of everything".
I was talking about quantum mechanics (which you brought up explicitly). In quantum mechanics there is no concept or mathematical treatment of reference frames. Trying to apply space-time dilation to quantum waves is something people have been banging their heads against for a long time, I don't just mean the math; I mean there is no way to tell if what they're trying to do has any conceptual validity as the propagation of all quantum theory waves is inherently the speed of light, the only glue between quantum mechanics and general relativity is the fact that gravitational and electromagnetic fields both follow similar mathematical laws and both propagate at the speed of light.
I'll now make a further statement: There are no contradictions in the math of general relativity, but there are conceptual errors that lead to the belief that there are causation paradoxes.
When I say "error" I mean something we know is wrong because it leads to a contradiction (and in most cases because it doesn't match observations). See the twin paradox for an excellent example. I do not mean "error" in that I have a solution. This ties in to what I just told b9, there are still mysteries. The science game isn't won yet.
If you would give a specific example (certain traveling or standing wave in certain potential) I'd be happy to analyze it for you and show you there is no need or evidence for time travel.Light is a good one.
Alright, what about light implies time travel (effect preceding cause)?
Created:
Posted in:
Compromise on moral issues solves nothing. The human heart cannot tolerate perceived injustice forever. The moral conflict itself must be solved, either by convincing the next generation, the current generation, or just killing people.
If that sounds like it will never happen, look at history; war is never over is it?
There is only one deal that can bring peace and justice (to my new empire): Liberty i.e. leave me the fuck alone unless I'm trampling someone else's liberty
Non-aggression = interaction by consent is something that is easily susceptible to logical analysis and universal application. There is every reason to believe everything good in human history was primarily predicted by the degree of liberty.
There is no reason to delay, and very little to lose by moving in that direction. Collectivism has been given a hundred chances in different variants and each time caused disaster and collapse.
Liberty has been tried only a handful of times and in a few limited contexts and each time it has led to an explosion of prosperity, good will, and generosity.
So I say, without the least irony: True liberalism has never been tried, let's fly closer to the sun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
The scientific claim is superior to the Christian one because it explains what happened after the origin with no more mysteries
There are plenty of mysteries left, that is besides the point.
A hypothesis that could equally predict every outcome is not supported by any particular outcome/experiment.
"God(s) willed it" predicts anything and everything so nothing is evidence of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
[Reece101] All i’ll say is quantum physics doesn’t entirely play by conventional causation.It most certainly does. There is no causing events in the past in quantum physics. If you heard there is, you've been duped by a diet ebuc.There is when we interact with it. But that’s about it from what I understand.
Demystifying quantum mechanics is a personal crusade of mine... and by myst I mean the mysticism many people have read into it. The reality is strange, but once you accept it there are no contradictions, causation paradoxes, subjective reality etc...
If you would give a specific example (certain traveling or standing wave in certain potential) I'd be happy to analyze it for you and show you there is no need or evidence for time travel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
@Best.Korea
Further, the government can tax you in many ways, including to make you pay in digital currency.
Not if they don't know what you have.
Any form of transaction currency that is 100% subject to digital storage can be erased with the click of a button.
Crypto cannot be destroyed except by destroying the whole system. We must never let the government have that level of control over every computer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Imagine that the assertions of columnists and newspaper writers don't constitute evidence or anything other than the opinion of someone who has gained access to a means of publication.
Which correlated probability is higher:
A.) The Poles attacked a radio station and nazi state media (over a dozen sources) + the italians and romanians were right that a counter attack was obviously in the interests of Germany and not just Hitler
B.) All of those institutions were simply repeating what they had been told by the propaganda minster in Germany, and the nazis decided to attack long before this or any other false flag operation
What is a coorelated probability? It's a probability derived from several other related probabilities: If you hear a cat outside your door it's probably a cat... unless you know there is someone watching cat videos on the internet out there.
So another pertinent fact in this case: Hitler wrote that Germany should attack the slavic countries.
See that changes things. How about another example, say a pipe explodes in the baltic. Wow that's weird maybe an accident? Well now I show you video of people in the US white house saying they wouldn't tolerate that pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine. Well now you have a correlated probability. That is how I knew it was blown up instead of suffered an unfortunate accident long before a real journalist got further corroborating evidence.
I had a conspiracy theory, I evaluated relative probabilities, and found it to be the best explanation. I was right.
The world is a bit more complicated than counting up the number of times you see a claim repeated like a puppet vampire, and some conspiracy theories are true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
@YouFound_Lxam
[YouFound_Lxam]The Domino Example:Think of our existence like a line of dominoes. Each domino before is affecting the next representing the flow of time as well as space, where the dominos are, and matter, the dominoes themselves. The dominoes falling represents time/space/matter working.Now Atheists usually can't explain how the universe came to be, so they usually revert to the argument that the universe has just been infinite and gone on forever.So, let's use the dominos in this example.If the line of dominoes was infinitely long, then the dominoes wouldn't ever fall, because there would never be a beginning to start the chain reaction from.So, in order for our universe to make sense there had to have been a beginning. But whatever started that beginning had to have been more powerful than the dominoes (time/space/matter) and exist outside that reality.Take that in.
If you can wrap your head around an infinite god that has no beginning and no end, why can't you do the same for a line of dominoes?
Or, if you can't wrap your head around god, why is it a problem if atheists can wrap their head around infinite causation?
Causation and beginning are temporal concepts. Without time causation is incoherent. Both theists and atheists often talk about "the beginning of time" (literally). Such a concept is incoherent. Time a relationship between events. Space is a relationship between points. Relationships aren't objects to be created and there is no reason to presume they were caused or could be caused.
[Reece101] All i’ll say is quantum physics doesn’t entirely play by conventional causation.
It most certainly does. There is no causing events in the past in quantum physics. If you heard there is, you've been duped by a diet ebuc.
[YouFound_Lxam]Atheism is too simple:Atheism turns out to be too simple.If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.Just as if there were no light in the universe, then therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.Dark would be without meaning.
No idea what this means.
P.S. I pity whoever liked orogami's utterly useless and baseless whining about plagiarism. OP didn't say he invented anything, and arguments, like knowledge are not intellectual property. You people who treat debate like a homework assignment or sport disgust me sometimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I'm going to shamelessly participate in this thread necromancy.
And place sexuality purely in genetics.
If it was, sexualities which don't produce children would have deleted themselves already. Also for continuous traits (like say skin melanin) a single gene never predicts as they are "quantized" (see Mendelian inheritance)
It's my view that people's sexual preferences are a mix of their genetics and experiences,
In a sense, genetics is always relevant. Genetics built everyone's brain, the range of possibilities is thus constrained by genetics.
However, when one says "it's genetic" they mean there is a particular gene that is highly correlated with a certain phenotype. This is an extremely testable hypothesis and it is extremely disproven for sexual orientation (of any kind) or gender dysphoria, or just about any other mental disorder with a few exceptions.
There is the possibility that a certain set of genes could allow for certain "disorders" but they are not sufficient. i.e. you need the gene AND you need some nurture to predict it. That is what I think you mean here. This should also be fairly easy to detect, and it hasn't been.
I believe sexual orientation is induced in early childhood, some form of association occurs well before sexual systems come online and then later the "sexualizing" algorithm operates on those associations (or perceptions).
I have come to this (very loosely supported) conclusion by process of elimination. It isn't predicted by genetics, it doesn't appear to be predicted by gestation conditions, it appears to be immutable by the time of puberty. All that's left stimulus between birth and puberty.
It may be possible to one day characterize the relevant stimulus and remove them from childhood development, thus curing sexual deviancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Your analogy is missing the government, which is confirmed to be present.
- Sorry, that's a lie.
- "Taibbi reported that he found no evidence of government involvement in the laptop story, tweeting, "Although several sources recalled hearing about a 'general' warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there's no evidence—that I've seen—of any government involvement in the laptop story."
Strawman, I'll let you stew and think about why. Engaging you in ever expanding posts is pointless due to your level of dishonesty. You, like DoubleR will never admit to your fallacy so long as there is anything else to focus on.
Anybody pretending that Twitter ain't a publisher is living in the QAnon bubble.
Let me know when you return to sanity, also you should stop defending insurrection.
Section 230
Irrelevant
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
CCP's economy is so contrived, especially in regards to currency exchange, we have no idea what is happening. Don't know about Russia.
I'm sure you're right about the EU. Everyone with an important currency are basically keynesian parrots and do the same thing. The rest base their currency on petrodollar so they track with it too.
Looking into India might be interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You are running away from any specific charge knowing that any specific claim is easily disproved.
Going into details with you has proven pointless in the past. If anyone who was not part of the Biden corruption debate doubts, let me know and I will go into details for your sake.
When the expression is controlled by media, that is called editorship.
Not when the media is controlled by the government and especially not when the entity in question is not media but a platform facilitating public dialogue. Social media is analogous to fedex, not a newspaper.
Here is an analogy to help you: Asking someone for tea is very different from "asking" them (with a gun in your hand) to go steal someone else's tea.
- Using this analogy, Twitter decides that one of its vendors is selling lawn clippings and calling it "tea." Twitter asks the vendor to stop calling it tea. When the vendor refuses, Twitter discontinues supply from that vendor. No government
Your analogy is missing the government, which is confirmed to be present.
no guns
Where there is government, there are guns.
no theft- all that is just huffs and puffs in the QAnon hyperventilation chamber.
Don't you get tired of defending insurrection? It must be such a burden to your soul.
. Fox is a media company, not a social media company. A publisher, not a platform.
- Show me where the US Constitution makes a distinction between publishers and platforms,
The difference is in the definitions, not the constitution. A publisher is an editor exercising original speech. A platform is a facilitator offering to aid in communicating the original speech of third parties.
The government may not impede original speech in any way.
A.) It cannot order twitter to not tweet,
B.) and it cannot order users besides twitter to not tweet.
B.i It cannot order twitter to stop users from tweeting because that is simply (B) by proxy
If the bill of rights could be skirted by annexing a private corporation there would be no bill of rights. The supreme court is not infallible, but to the extent that you have blindly appealed to its authority before, this is recognized.
Explain to me how Twitter does not publish and Fox is not a platform.
A platform is a stage like a forum in classical Rome or an Agora in classical Greece. The public are invited to come in, and once inside they engage in speech.
The owner of the forum does not own the speech, has not commissioned any particular opinion, and does not determine whether the views expressed reflect his own (are true in his opinion).
A publisher publishes, that is creates discernible units of speech over which editorial control has been (in theory) applied. Various persons may be enlisted to produce the speech, but the speech is by that token commissioned and the publisher takes responsibility for it.
This is why you can sue a newspaper but you cannot sue a forum. If laws were different they would be wrong, this is (for once) the correct analysis.
You cannot have it both ways. Someone has to 'own'/'be responsible for' the speech. Insofar as a publisher is a manufacturer of speech, it may be responsible and thereby it may choose to publish or not to publish. This is inherent in the act of soliciting expression (from a columnist for example), by asking someone to specifically write something FOR YOU they consent to not be published and you consent to take responsibility for the content.
There is no such relationship between social media companies and their users. If you wish to advance the theory that each social media user is providing solicited expressions that are owned by thesocial media company there are two consequences:
1.) The social media companies are responsible for every single thing that was said, every piece of libel, every slander, every threat, every call to violence.
1.) The social media companies are responsible for every single thing that was said, every piece of libel, every slander, every threat, every call to violence.
2.) The social media companies are guilty of hundreds of millions of counts of fraud and should be at once nationalized to make whole the victims.
The government may not impede expression regardless of the origin. It may not censor a newspaper and it may not censor individual expression. All that I have just described can be boiled down to the obvious: People talking on social media are people talking, it isn't twitter having a conversation with itself.
Fox does not invite the general public to speak on its programming. It never airs any segment without one of its agents present or guiding. That makes it a publisher.
Twitter invites the general public and creates an implicit contract for facilitating expression via the community guidelines (or whatever they're called). They transmit speech, they don't create it. That makes them a platform.
If Fox hosted a forum and emails were uncovered where the DOJ was telling Swecker who to ban on that forum, that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
- A Forum is "A gathering for the purpose of discussion; A form of discussion involving a panel of presenters"
What have I ever done to give you the impression that such pathetic word games would work on me? Equivocation - the fallacy. Moving on...
Worse than former employees getting advice
Such despicable dishonesty....
- Trump actually just ordered FOX who to ban, who to promote, who to attack.
- For example,
- Then-President Donald Trump urged the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, to use the influence of his network to help sink the Senate candidacy of coal baron Don Blankenship in 2018, according to newly released court documents.
Blankenship was surging in the polls in the final days of a bruising West Virginia GOP primary race, prompting concern among Trump and other Republicans that his potential victory could lead to a failed attempt to unseat incumbent Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, in the general election.
So, Trump appealed to Murdoch to ramp up the network’s criticism of Blankenship, lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems said in court documents as part of a defamation lawsuit against Fox News.
Ah, so when your quote says "urged" you translate to "ordered" but when you see "flagged for removal" you think "humbly requested advice."
In all seriousness if the above was true it is too close to a violation of the 1st amendment for comfort. While it's true that Rupert Murdoch influencing fox would be acting as a publisher the mere act of being approached by the government in any form invokes the threat of force.
The government should never be getting anywhere near the subject of speech, expression, or religion in any private communications ever.
If Trump told the post office or FedEx to not deliver political mail that might help Blankenship that would be equivalent to what the FBI did at twitter. Trump would then be in a state of rebellion against the constitution of the United States of America and ought to have been exiled or executed.
Let's be sure to note that Matt Taibi specifically refutes your claim .... You believe in Elon Musk's lies even though Elon is basing his claim on Taibi and Taibi says as loud as he can that Elon Musk is wrong and knowingly lying.
You can't even summarize your own quoted material honestly. Ignored
Every bit of sober, factual reporting....
Yea I've seen your filter at work before. if (agrees with me) return reliable; else return crackpots;
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
No. An anarchist is defined as someone who rejects the concept of government (organized violence enforcing a code of behavior, i.e. laws).
There are only two coherent forms of anarchist: Pacifist or Mad Max Savage
It is not law that I reject but unjust law which is law which violates liberty. In other words, it isn't dragons that are the problem but the princess eating.
A 100% public sector economy may seem like communism, but if it is purely by consent it is not immoral and I do not condemn it. It is freely chosen. However, that would be a profoundly false definition of communism. That is more like their fairytale.
I therefore do no care about the size of government. Small, big, medium, whatever works; and you know if it's working if people support it without being threatened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
You are correct there is no difference in quality between taxation and communism. There is often a difference in degree. Communism is 100% tax rate.
Looking at an arbitrary nation state and saying "Look it's their business if they oppress minorities" is not "freely chosen", an accident of history led to that border, even if it is a democracy slavery is still slavery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I don't think Communism 'needs to be anyone's enemy,Though I prefer that any nation that adopts it, do so of their own free will.
Communism and free will are contradictory by definition.
Nations are arbitrary, the only non-arbitrary unit of humanity is "everyone" and the individual. Individuals don't get to say "no" to communism,
I just don't see it, I see 'factions yes,I understand down low and backdoor deals yes,But 'Deep 'State, sounds conspiracy excessive, to me.
You don't see a pyramid, all you see are blocks which fit within a four sided triangular solid.
It doesn't matter if it's a grand conspiracy or a bunch of little conspiracies only working together by common interests. The result is the same, and the crimes are the same.
See Jan 6, nobody organized anything but a protest. Just a bunch of angry people going with the flow. No Illuminati required.
Difference is, left-tribers get themselves in positions of institutional power and use it. See twitter files, see Ukraine coup, see frame job of 1st impeachment, see russia collusion hoax, see summer of love, see IRS audits of right-tribers, see FTC investigation of Musk, see DC courts holding people without charges, see FBI hiding Hunter's laptop, see CIA spying on general population and then getting countries to arrest Assange on trumped up charges, see the baltic pipeline exploding, see the FBI lying to FISA courts.
That's just off the top of my head. If you don't see it, you're not looking. If you say "just a conspiracy theory" to every data point, how would you ever detect a conspiracy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
what was censored by whom when?
What = Opinions and data presented by people (often american citizens) using social media. = Constitutionally protected speech
When = Pretty much since Trump won when he was expected to lose until present, with the exception of Twitter where Musk presumably stopped it
Want details? Actually read the twitter files instead of just claiming you did.
what does this have to do with white supremacy?
Don't care, you have been shoving the raft away from the dock just as hard as anyone else.
asking people not to speak is very different from "asking" people to censor.
- Orwellian double talk
it is called rational inquiry and thinking for oneself. To censor is something you do to another, something they do not agree with.
Here is an analogy to help you: Asking someone for tea is very different from "asking" them (with a gun in your hand) to go steal someone else's tea.
Chris Swecker
No, Swecker works at Fox. Fox is a media company, not a social media company. A publisher, not a platform. If Fox hosted a forum and emails were uncovered where the DOJ was telling Swecker who to ban on that forum, that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
If the purpose of said censorship was to subvert an election, that would (by recent precedent) be insurrection. The appropriate response would then be to exile or execute Chris Swecker and every last person in the DOJ who participated or knew without reporting.
Since you were profoundly wrong on the first name, I'll assume the same for the rest.
Created:
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain] Pence said. “There is no room for Putin apologists in the Republican Party.”
Turned out, there was no room for Pence in the republican party.... (couldn't help it, too low hanging)
Created:
Posted in:
"Top congressional republicans" in whose book?
It's also a glaring false analogy to imply that failing to arm some distant country is the same as disarming them or anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
There 'were other paths NATO could have gone down,
NATO could have dissolved or reformed into a global anti-communist pact and allowed Russia (and all old USSR bloc) to join. Then CCP would be isolated and would have probably never have been allowed to rig international trade to make themselves the manufacturing center of the world. By 2000 they would have folded and perhaps even restored the ROC.
This is a general pattern by the way, any thought experiment that involves destroying communists sooner probably leads to less death conflict overall.
But are nations 'free, or under 'Russia's say so?
That's what an enormous number of people ask about the US hegemony. It seems to describe the unaccountable barely elected EU bureaucracy fairly well too.
Having power and interests alone don't make you evil, using power immorally makes you evil.
Russian released those soviet bloc nations in the first place. Then they were hands off for an entire generation. Pretending like they were a looming imperial threat for that whole time is ridiculous.
If the village calls you a monster for all your life, what motivation do you have to be anything else?
Formal alliances and treaties trickle down into the culture. If Russians didn't feel like they were rivals there is no way they would support a war in Europe. Would the Russian state stop vying for influence over nearby countries and economic interests? Of course not, nobody ever does. Yet we could have broken down barriers, instead we rebuilt the Berlin wall through endless fear mongering (and by we I mainly mean the deep state AKA military industrial complex).
But I think people overplay them at times, into some sort of bogeyman, rather than regular people.
Hitler was a painter with a German shepherd. Stalin was just a regular old Joe once (literally).
The Bond Villain is the fantasy. Real monsters are made from regular people.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
most if not all people at my hs are through precalculus by senior yeara hefty portion of them are taking calc ab/bc senior yearand some are even taking multivariable
Good for them, provided nobody bought each student a useless apple computer (which nobody needs), sounds like things are just fine in your neck of the woods.
saying that school doesn't teach math is ridiculous. imo, unless somebody has learning disabilities or some sort of disadvantage, doing good in school is just a matter of putting effort into it.
"Through an analysis of 150 Baltimore City Schools, 23 of them, including 10 high schools, eight elementary schools, three high schools and two middle schools, no students met math grade-level expectations, according to a report by Project Baltimore."
teachers shouldn't be punished for students who want to put in the bare minimal work.
They wouldn't be. If the student doesn't turn in homework, there is nothing to grade is there? If a student doesn't ever go to the office there is no time spent is there? If the student never shows up for class, someone else can sit in his seat.
It's not punishment to pay people for results. If you claim to be teaching 20 people and none of them succeed the common denominator is YOU. Or we could assume poor inner city kids are mentally deficient in which case it STILL DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO PAY SOMEONE TO TEACH THEM!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'm clutching pearls in an emotional appeal which begs the question. I thought I'd try it out, I can see why left-tribers do it so often. Very easy on the brain cells. I'm also quite serious though.
Your analogy is trash by the way, asking people not to speak is very different from "asking" people to censor. It would only be analogous if the social media company forwarded a request to the person in question requesting that they take down the tweet/post.
I assume you are talking about...
I'm talking about DOJ employees and agents working in positions of high power at social media companies coordinating with their masters in the DOJ (read deep state because this is unconstitutional)
Paul Ryan talking is 100 trillion kilometers apart from Paul Ryan communicating with unelected agents in the government and carrying out their unconstitutional demands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Why are you defending insurrectionists? How can you do that without shame?
Created:
I can't remember at this point why I decided ebuc wasn't a chat bot...
Anyway those who speak again OOP are blasphemers. "functional programing" is the cave-dwelling hell before the glorious light of OOP arrived. It is equivalent to OOP where you are limited to singletons.
C++ is love. C++ is life. C++ can do everything (except reasonable meta-programming) without hiding anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Inflation is solely caused by the federal reserveThe federal reserve has tools to combat inflation that may or not be enough depending on the depth of the issue. Nothing in their arsenal was sufficient to combat global inflation brought on by a global pandemic.
The federal reserve is the one and only source of US dollars. It is therefore the one and only source of inflation.
Cells infected with covid did not caused a single cent to come into existence.
They spiked the money supply with COVID as an excuse. You put the cart before the horse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
- Keeping Gas and Inflation majorly down.
Biden did this too
Inflation is solely caused by the federal reserve. The federal reserve reacts to credit demand. Credit demand in countries collapsing due to giant wasteful public sectors is determined by government spending.
It's not one president or another. It's the anticipation of enormous deficit spending.
It was less under Trump because of the expectation that he would veto enormous deficit spending.
Now how in the world would you quantify that Biden kept inflation low? Vs what? Who told you it would be higher under any other policy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
A scientific question would be: Does a zygote contain a complete and final set of DNA?It does, but so does a cancer cell, so unless your arguing that cancer cells are human beings, this definition isn't good for what a human being is.
Underdog... that wasn't a definition of what a human being is. It was an example of a scientific question which is definitely not a definition of what a human being is.
Science is logic + experiment related to the natural world. You can ask how, you an ask why, but you can't ask for definitions. Logic doesn't produce definitions, it operates on them. Choosing useful definitions that allow for useful inferences is an art and sometimes an act of genius but not a science.
Or Does a zygote use phospholipids in its cell walls?I'm unsure, but I don't think so.
It does, all Terran life does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@Double_R
Yea I've been through your brand of mental contortionism before with the Biden corruption stuff. Not interested in doing that again, at least no without some sign of a sane third party.
The state may not "request" censorship anymore than it may "request" restriction of religion, anyone who doesn't find that obvious is already stupider than Trump on his worst day. Anyone who is willing to accept that state of affairs after learning that a significant portion of upper management "were" high ranking agents of the state is stupider than Whoopi Goldberg on her worst day.
I cannot convey to you just how little interest I have in shoving once again the obvious line of implication under your noses to watch you hand waive and run around to the beginning to pretend like you heard nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You would know if you actually were paying attention to the twitter files instead of lying about it and claiming you knew everything already.
James Baker for example.
Sleeper = doesn't act as agent until the right time
Coordinating with handlers at the FBI for censorship and censoring the twitter files even as Musk was demanding transparency = 10^-9 chance of coincidence.
Created: