Total posts: 4,833
-->
@oromagi
AP News: "That’s a gross distortion of what actually happened. State and Fulton County election officials say surveillance video that Trump refers shows no improper behavior, but normal ballot processing using not suitcases, but ballot containers on wheels.
AP says officials say, but my eyes are what I'm listening to and my eyes say they kept the watchers in a corner and then sent them home before pulling out the containers. There also appears to be repeatedly running the same ballots through.
An independent monitor and an investigator in fact oversaw the vote count, according to state and county officials.
My lying eyes vs AP reporting on 'officials', tough one.
The total numbers of ballot counted in the hour and one half of overtime counting was roughly 1,000.
Prove it.
Even though this election fully validates the general, there are no claims of election fraud for these election.
Claims of fraud is not necessarily proportional to fraud.
Trump's claim is not just obviously fake it is also stupid- just refusing to look at the evidence.
I did look at the evidence, I'm simply placing a higher weight on the evidence over assertions.
Created:
Mostly ideal cases of pardon power use, when your political opponents have captured law enforcement institutions and are using them to blackmail confessions out of people and/or framing them to try to get you to lie about how bad the president is.
Of course he wouldn't have to do that if he had just destroyed those subverted institutions, SAAAD!
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
I don't have to believe in god to see that your body is an incredible and naturally beautiful thing. Thinking you can improve it with artistic whims and wounds communicates that you don't agree.Saying that something is naturally beautiful and trying to "improve it" are not mutually exclusive.
That's true, but then you get into what counts as improvement. To my aesthetics there is almost nothing you can do to a healthy body to make it look better. If it's not a healthy body the best way to make it look better is to make it healthy.
I get similar feelings for two other things:
1) in regards to architectural elements which attempts to intimate materials. Vinyl (which is an amazing plastic) which pretends to be wood, (now ceramics that pretend to be wood), plastic that pretends to be metal, metal that pretends to be tile.
The function of the material is part of its beauty. This imitation tries to separate form from function. As if wood is intrinsically beautiful instead of it becoming a standard of beauty because it was such a useful material.
2) in regards to animal breeds which have clearly impaired functions, i.e. short legs, floppy ears, out of control hair, absurd over-muscle, etc... In these cases especially I see the ability of humans to create a standard of perfection that is profoundly divorced from function and when compared to the original species can only be classed a wretched mutilation.
Like I said the symbolism to me can be very different from what people who get tattoos or piercings think, but it's not as if there aren't plenty of options to make personal statements with clothing and hairstyle. They go beyond that and the reason why is very often, as Greyparrot speculated, because they feel like what they have and are isn't good enough. They look in the mirror and they can't face it, and I'm not just talking about surface appearance. They feel the need for permanent and/or damaging change because it makes it feel more like they are changing themself.
I think I must agree with Greyparrot because when I think of tattoos as they are used by say Polynesian traditions I don't feel any repulsion at all. The only difference is the perceived reason they're doing it.
Contrast this with the giant lip stretching ornaments of (those guys) in Africa (yea you know who I mean). I still think that's gross and in that case its because the harm and mutilation is present in an objective way that doesn't exist for well executed tattoos.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Greyparrot
@Vici
Tattoos on the neck and face. Ear gauges. I despise ear gauges.
The attraction to bodily piercings.
Nose rings.
Totally agree. There is a miasma of falseness around them all that I don't perceive with clothing style. I don't have to believe in god to see that your body is an incredible and naturally beautiful thing. Thinking you can improve it with artistic whims and wounds communicates that you don't agree.
Then again they would tell me I simply don't understand, and I can't argue that. Aesthetics is not intrinsically subjective but the symbolism can vary to the point of creating contradictions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
As well as being a description that best matches the observations we see and offers a descriptive model that correctly predicts a multitude of other observations.
There are no predictions related to the "creation of time" or a "multiverse".
@Sidewalker Don't say "science does X" science doesn't do anything, science is rationality (logic + creativity) applied to natural phenomenon. It is not a person. It has no opinions and no failures.
It's a very small set of "science communicators" and psuedoscientific mystics who are spreading around this nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Finally, we could speculate that our universe is part of a multiverse with many other universes beyond our own, but it is unlikely that we are expanding into them.Yeah, you see a lot of speculation about the so-called multiverse, but that’s all it is, speculation, it’s not science, and it’s unfounded. That is the problem with confusing the tools of science with the substance of science.
You're correct multiverse is pure speculation, but very often people are obviously not even aware of what the speculation originally was. Intrinsic to that speculation was the notion that the generation of a new universe is not spatially remote but at the instant of wave collapse the universe and every object in it occupy the exact same space at the same time.
Anyone who understood the speculation would know that "expanding into them" is like a bad sci-fi movie's first impression. As if they're "out there" beyond the "barrier between universes"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The trite answer is that both space and time were created at the big bang about 14 billion years ago
Time being "created" is a contradiciton in terms. i.e. it is non-sense to say and anyone who says it basically confesses that they're making shit up.
Of course, the universe has at least four dimensions (three for space and one for time) which is nigh on impossible for us to visualise.
It's easily visualized, it's called motion.
Time is not a spatial dimension, it is put into the same matrix with spatial dimensions to facilitate the math of special and general relativity.
Created:
They hung him for a traitor, themselves a traitorous crew.
P.S. that video was not "debunked" Raffensperger asserted that everything was fine. I debunk his debunking by asserting it was not fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
After carefully sifting through many possible interpretations the only one that makes any sense is that Biden was protecting Hunter in his demandYou think this makes sense because you have ignored or just hand waive away every fact which does not align.
Pick one and we'll focus on it till resolution. Then we will agree on the resolution, return to the whole issue and pick another fact. Rinse and repeat until the truth is known to us both. That's the only way to resolve this. To state the obvious our disagreement is not an isolated event but is represnetative of a disagreement between tens of millions of people and is a stepping stone towards the dissolution of a nation.
The Vice President does not have the authority to make this decision on his own, so it wasn’t even coming from him.
That does not follow.
1.) He could be bluffing, for all the Ukrainian government knew he could stop the funds alone.
2.) It could be coming from him, with Obama going along as a favor.
Everyone within the federal government including the intelligence agencies and congress, and even the European Union all agreed with this move. Again, this wasn’t Joe Biden, it was official US policy.
Provide evidence, from before the quid pro quo.
The investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time Biden did this, and the events that were under investigation occurred on 2010, years before Hunter joined the board so he had no personal exposure regardless.
That is not what Viktor Shokin said, nor does that claim line up with the fact that Mykola Zlochevsky's assets were seized around 4/2/2016. See the screen capture of interfax-Ukraine:
Feb 2nd 2016.
Meanwhile the Trump/Ukraine couldn’t be any more obvious but you cherry pick your facts there as well to make it seem plausible that he was just out to stop corruption. Why?
There is no other plausible motive. Why would Trump want Hunter and burisma investigated if he didn't think there was corruption?
Executing a search warrant requires the DOJ to show probable cause that the subject not only committed a crime but that evidence of said crime is in the location requesting to be searched, and have all this signed off by a federal judge.
Or just find a judge who went to Epstein's island and blackmail him....
Created:
Posted in:
I say that Kenya is not like the surface of Mars or anything and that on the face of it someone being born there is not absurd.IwantRooseveltagain: Make an argument?
Alright:
/It is unlikely that a webpage would be setup addressing something that cannot or does not happen
/A webpage explaining traditions and options for childbirth exists https://www.axaglobalhealthcare.com/en/wellbeing/pregnancy/kenya/#:~:text=The%20international%2Dstandard%20hospitals%20in,KSH%20100%2C000%20and%20KSH%20260%2C000.
//It is likely that childbirth can and does occur in Kenya.
There are plenty more arguments possible.
IwantRooseveltagain: Yet there was very little talk of Cruz not being a natural born citizen. Why? RACISM by republicans.
Racism that only manifests as political asymmetry? That's not racism that political bias. A true racist would disparage Cruz (or Obama) for his genes regardless of where he was born.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You were probably "beaten" because people like to punish pride.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I disagree, it is not a typical stunt. Releasing a scandalous interview is typical. If this is the new typical today, tomorrow the new typical will be assassination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
You presume he mishandled something.
Created:
Posted in:
A jockey's lack of skill/knowledge can ruin the race for the horse, but the horse is the one who runs fast. The best jockey with a mediocre horse will not win, while some horses don't need a jockey to win at all.
The debator's horse is reality. If your conclusion is true you have all the advantages, if it is false you have a multitude of vulnerabilities.
A person who manages to speak in such a way that the unwise think him equally correct when he speaks falsehoods as when he speaks truth is a sophist (modern sense).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No, it was just racism.
Make an argument.
And the fact people don’t trust the media and government is because most people are ignorant when it comes to the issues.
It could also be explained by them being less ignorant than you.
hey fail to exercise good critical thinking skills, they believe sources that lack credentials to speak with authority
Trusting authority is typically the domain of those with poor critical thinking skills. Those with an effective rational faculty understand and have confidence in their own ability to analyze and spot check.
Do me a favor, don’t call me anymore. I came to this site looking for intellectuals, not wack jobs.
No can do, I'll continue to comment when I have a comment. I believe you are looking for an engineered echo chamber, there are plenty who will cater to you. Then you can, like the portrayed fox-news-zombie, be free from cognitive dissonance or thinking at all really.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Note how you implicitly agree that looking at the merits is the decider. So don't ask for previous rulings, look at the constitution.
There is no consistent structure in supreme court precedent, demonstrating so is easy:
and some are based on logic like Roe v Wade, a women’s decision to continue a pregnancy is a private matter.
So is how I spend my money, are taxes unconstitutional?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It is the derision that created those movements. You don't think 30-40 million people just have an inexplicable love of orange haired real estate moguls do you?Yes, I have heard that before - that disdain for low information citizens who readily accept unfounded conspiracy theories is causing them to get even more angry. What can you say about someone who thinks Barack Obama was born in Kenya?
I say that Kenya is not like the surface of Mars or anything and that on the face of it someone being born there is not absurd.
I say that if Obama was not born in Kenya it speaks volumes about the abused trust of media and government that so many people don't trust them to relay that information accurately.
Often these people are driven by racism and status anxiety -
That I have found is almost entirely false.
they are falling out of the middle class.
A lot of people are, and it is almost entirely the fault of government action.
In the Information Age, ignorance is a choice.
It would take a person of especially low intelligence to look at the internet as it exists and think to oneself "gee, the truth is so easy to find these days".
Once you know several hotspots like wikipedia, twitter, google, etc.. are being censored and tailored by people with specific political and ethical agendas (and knowing such a thing does not require great knowledge or intelligence) the wisest course is distrust.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Has the Supreme Court always had the same people or do they change over the years?
It changes, but the constitution largely has not. It thus follows that the supreme court has erred in its interpretation of the implications of the constitution at some point.
This could easily have been predicted since human beings are fallible and especially so when subject to irrational philosophical indoctrination.
It would then behoove the rational and honest thinker to analyze the matter in question rather than placing absolute authority over truth into the hands of others, not only in the case of the supreme court but in all cases.
You however want to have your cake and eat it too. You want people to consider the supreme court the "last word" regardless of what the constitution actually says... but only when you agree with the supreme court. When you disagree with the supreme court you dismiss its rulings.
You ask for supreme court rulings, but if one happens to say something like "secure from search and seizure ~ privacy != abortion" you cry " That's no true supreme court ruling!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Crazy talk deserves nothing but derision. People in power giving crazy talk anything but derision is how we got the Tea Party and the MAGA movement.
It is the derision that created those movements. You don't think 30-40 million people just have an inexplicable love of orange haired real estate moguls do you?
Created:
Posted in:
Listen bud, some of my best friends are Seventh
Day Avocadoists....
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
until we got a few nut jobs on the Supreme Court
Contrast with:
Do you have a case to cite from the Supreme Court?
from the same post.
No true Scotsman much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
said hey I don't agree with you.
That's not debate, that's just counter-assertion.
To debate you need more than a set of beliefs, you need to know why you believe them; then you need to communicate with the other guy and he has to understand your arguments.
It's a non-starter when people can't justify their own beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
If there is a debate between truly contradicting positions that doesn't sway one side there are three possibilities:
1.) Unquantified confidence in premises (inductive arguments), which generally render the debate of questionable use.
2.) The "debate" was flawed, i.e. uncaught fallacies advanced, false premises shared.
3.) The observers are flawed in prejudice, virtue, or logical training.
Created:
Posted in:
Absurd ethics leads to absurd rules, absurd rules lead to absurd scenarios.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If Trump was caught fucking a horse in the White House, I have no doubt Trump supporters would say What’s wrong with that, I was thinking of fucking a horse myself.
They would have a point :o
Win, then you can slowly rebuild trust and stability. The only reason Germany could rise again was because the real nazis all got themselves killed.In this story the Republicans are the Nazis you idiot.
Yes yes, from your point of view the Jedi are evil thanks for the input.
So, they are unsealed and Trump had top secret documents. Because he’s a rich, white man now we have to determine his intent.
Actually those 74 million don't care what is intent was because A) Regardless of Hilary's intent she got a free pass, and B) no other president has been raided to recover documents top-secret or otherwise. C) If Trump said the FBI were lying the 74 million would believe him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
..." total body of knowledge " includes all that has and is known by humans, so you dropped that claim --I guess--, and, tried to put it another way,
No I didn't drop a claim I didn't make. Although the same point can and should be made on the collective level.
A rational civilization is committed to resolving contradictions in its collective body of knowledge so as to make the result a more perfect reflection of the truth.
and now you want to change it again, as,
No change occurred, you made an assumption about some platonic ideal and pasted it onto my sentence which implies no such thing.
Created:
oromagi's point was correct, he did not have the duty to go lookup data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Trump could have done it to Hillary and Joe Biden but he didn't. He could have done it to Nancy Pelosi for her public financial ties to China, but he didn't. The closest Trump ever came was a State Department investigation that was under the radar and was strong armed by the DOJ and FBI despite there being ample evidence (the laptop, Nancy Pelosi's financial records being public, and the Ukrainian and Russian governments both blatantly talking about the quid pro quo going on with their governments and our elected officials).
And what did he get for it? This, and probably more. I wouldn't be surprised to see a perp walk.
Somebody was probably telling him that "Mr. President you can't do that, that would be seen as tyrannical". Where are those people when deep-state-democrats are in office?
This is war, it has been war for a while. Pretending you aren't in a war is the best way to lose a war, if there is a republic at the end good for us but you can't keep a republic by letting people trample all over it. That is why I would vote for DeSantis over Trump in a primary. Trump talks the talk, but he does not walk the walk; and the walk is unrestrained political warfare.
Win, then you can slowly rebuild trust and stability. The only reason Germany could rise again was because the real nazis all got themselves killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Huh? Your still dreaming of a reality that does not exist ex Ive forgotten lot a of knowledge and on bad days I cant even remmber some friends names, and I presume most other people not that much differrent for varying for age etc.
Well I dreamed that if you forgot something you knew it once, which meant it was part of your body of knowledge once, which means you had a body of knowledge; and since you're communicating in some form of English you still do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Huh? no one has "access to total body of knowledge."
Every mind has a total body of knowledge, the a rational person is consciously aware of the need to remove falsehoods from that body by reasoning/applying logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
ADOL: The claim was made by Viktor Shokin, not lawyers.oromagi: Shokin starts: " I make this statement at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash ("DF"), for use in legal proceedings in Austria."\
This is perhaps the best example to date of where your point is defeated, but you just ignore it and keep talking with implicitly moved goalposts.
oromagi: Obviously, the fact that the claim was made by lawyers working for Putin discredits the claim.
That was false, but you won't admit you were wrong; that makes you a "willful participant in your own misinformation".
For the record the claim was made my Shokin. I'm not engaging in your fallacious red herrings about who solicited it because they are fallacious red herrings. If a prosecutor asks a witness a question you don't get to say "objection, the prosecutor is biased". THE PROSECUTOR WAS ASKING NOT ANSWERING.
The fact that Zelensky's investigation and Shokin's co-workers say that he had dropped Burisma entirely by that time seem far more credible than some testimony manufactured by Giuliani years later.
Back to claiming Shokin didn't say that? That's what "manufactured" means. Well since you feel comfortable dismissing statements based on who might have called for them so do I. Therefore the investigation by the replaced state prosecutor is dismissed because clearly he was the deep state approved plant. I'll dismiss your anonymous blogger reports on "coworkers" too because clearly if they were asking the question the answer is tainted.
You can't make a case under your own rules because those rules are ridiculous. It's a double standard pure and simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Huh? AI has already exist for some years now.
*sigh* talk about lowering the bar.
Logic = algorithm ---ergo programmed or progrmable calculations---........Reason = logic and common sense ergo, a potential for a more wholistic consideration that is beyond the linear ....
Reason = logic consistently applied with all conclusions being crosschecked (integrated) with the total body of knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Doubtful. I assume anybody interested in the truth prefers Bloomberg to anonymous as a source of factual claim. Anonymous claims are almost always anonymous for a fucked up reason.
You made up "anonymous" Mr Anonymous internet poster. The researchers names are on the site, the screenshots, archives, and links are more complete than the typical opinion pretending to be news.
Snowden, Assange, Manning are all examples of how anonymity is a good idea.
Hey remember the "whistleblower" who shall not be named who triggered the first impeachment spectacle?
Because the editor at the mostly reliable "The Hill" tells us to.
The editor relates someone's statement and now you think the authority (which I don't accept) of the editor transfers to the subject of his reporting?
No editor with a reputation to maintain would report that there was no board of directors for Biden to have joined unless he confirmed that easily confirmable fact.
He didn't report that, he reported that somebody claimed that.
and you can be confident that all four corrections here were more carefully researched than Solomon's claims.
I have no confidence left, and they weren't corrections they were notes.
Obviously, the fact that the claim was made by lawyers working for Putin discredits the claim.Obviously, the fact that the claim was made by lawyers working for Trump discredits the claim.Obviously, the fact that the claim was made by lawyers working for author discredits the claim.
The claim was made by Viktor Shokin, not lawyers.
And the Russiagate hoax originated from one of Hilary's lawyers, does that discredit it?
The fact that Solomon reported a claim when he obviously knew that it had been manufactured on behalf of Trump and/or Putin is scandalous.
What in the world are you talking about? Are you denying that Shokin made that statement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Why would we accept the assertions....
Bla bla bla, "we" you speak only for yourself. If you want to believe the screenshots were photo-shopped there is nothing I can do to stop you. "we" don't trust your sources and you don't trust "our" sources: impasse. Observe:
Since Blue Star Strategies has never had a board of directors, Solomon is making shit up when he claims Biden served on that board
Why would "we" accept the assertions of Karen Tramontano, who would under the working theory be a cog in a shell company who has nothing to gain from telling the truth and everything to fear.
Solomon failed to reveal that Shokin's 2019 statement was made at the request and in the presence of DiGenova & Toensing....
So he made it long after the fact, at a point when it was clear what way the political chips had fallen.... if we can dismiss all statements that fall into that category we can dismiss all that noise RR was talking about with "everybody knew Shokin was corrupt", nobody (to my knowledge) ever said that publicly before saying so would be helpful to Biden and the deep-state.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
That is, traditional, classical debate ALWAYS ended with a vote or judgement, a winner and a loser.
Did Socrates say he lost the debate? No, nor did those that followed after him and condemned the assembly of Athens.
Logic may not be democratic but debate was and remains entirely, fundamentally democratic.
As you seem expert in, you reduce it to semantics by implying separation.
If you have no word for "social logic through the exchange and critique of arguments", know that I call it debate and I am certainly not alone among the ancient thinkers.
A poll to see people's opinions of arguments is nothing objectionable, but nor is it sacred. Social logic in earnest pursuit of the truth [aka debate] is sacred.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@oromagi
@Double_R
@IwantRooseveltagain
Double_R: You forgot to apply your own definition, in particular, self interest.
self-interest vs greed was another example of a word that exists only to add moral judgement to an amoral concept.
Trade is amoral, quid pro quo describes the exact same interaction but since it is only used in situations where the trade is immoral the use of the word brings moral implications.
The message Biden delivered wasn’t Biden’s personal wishes, it was official US policy. Everyone from all of the intelligence agencies to Obama himself was on board with this. In the story that you are trying to pass off as a smoking gun,
So if Trump had replaced the intelligence agencies and cabinet with actual loyalists who went along with anything he said instead a bunch of snakes would that mean there was no self-interest? It was a smoking gun because there is no legitimate reason for the US to stop investigations into companies where Hunter just happened to be inexplicably employed.
Double_R: Biden recounted telling Ukraine “call him”. Him being the President. Because as you may or may not be aware, the Vice President does not have the authority to stop payments to a foreign ally.
So you call the president because the president has the authority to stop payments to a foreign ally? *taps chin*
Double_R: What’s more, this wasn’t just the US that wanted this, it was the entire western world. The reason Shokin was well known was for his corruption. Specifically, for not investigating corruption. The international community was well aware of this.
So Shokin didn't investigate corruption, he just investigated giant corporations where the sons of US high officials were inexplicably employed.... doesn't quite fit does it? How about some recordings from before the shit hit the fan?
Double_R: Which brings us to Burisma, the supposed reason Biden did all this according to those accusing him. Except Burisma wasn’t being investigated at that time because Shokin already shut it down, so there was nothing for Biden to be concerned about here.
Wrong:
JOHN SOLOMON: Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma’s owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General’s office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.
Double_R: Meanwhile, what Trump was looking for was entirely personal and he was using the power of his office to achieve it.
All the knives cut both ways. Biden wasn't protecting his son, he just hated corruption? Well then Trump just hated corruption. If Biden's motivation couldn't have been to shut down an investigation because the investigation wasn't very active, then how is it that Trump was motivated to go after Biden when no one really thought he would be the presidential nominee?
After carefully sifting through many possible interpretations the only one that makes any sense is that Biden was protecting Hunter in his demand, and when Biden bragged about it that made Trump angry at the open corruption thus the request for an investigation.
Double_R: The transcript demonstrated clearly all of this, and it is clear to anyone who understands how language works that out wasn’t a request.
Hardly, and we have more than the transcript we have the audio.
Double_R: One of Zalensky’s advisors who left government steward gave an interview on it and made clear that they all understood what Trump wanted.
Assuming that's true he wouldn't be alone. Randos in the Whitehouse, Vindman said the same thing. Surely there couldn't be ulterior motivations for those statements right? Why would we ever look deeper than surface motivations right?
... on that subject why do you think Zalensky said there was no quid pro quo?
Double_R: These two scenarios are not comparable.
Yet I continue to compare them. Is there nothing I cannot do? *thunder rumbles*
Greyparrot: Come to think of it...it really does seem like Trump rigged a reverse Jan 6 on the FBI by instigating a horrendous act for the sake of optics. Trump's informant waved in those FBI better than Ray Epps ever did.
Not impossible.
IwantRooseveltagain: Only an idiot would cite the Epoch Times in a discussion about any serious matter.
Behold the inevitable result of all appeals to authority.
oromagi: I had a good friend who caught her uncle fucking his poodle in his study. She was supposed to just be a guest for few days but she blackmailed her uncle (a local judge) into 4 years tuition and rent provided that he never own another pet.
badger is right, you posted that exact story before... and thank you badger for spreading it around anyone you scare off with that doesn't have enough objectivity to carry on a useful dialogue.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
So when he's lecturing you about debating, let's be sure to note that Dream doesn't mean debating in any traditional sense of the word or in this website's sense of the word. He means just posting shit to the Forums with the exact same amount of rigor you have already used.
The sense I use the word is pretty traditional, classical even.
Created:
Debating wackjobs is the only way to know you're not a wackjob because it turns out (and this is an inescapable historical fact) that entire societies can be wackjobs so living in an overton window guarantees absolutely nothing.
If you're looking for people who disagree with you provided it's not any kind of disagreement that provokes an emotional reaction you're looking for a book club not debate.
The only thing that frustrates me is when people don't know how to debate but black knight it anyway because they find "clashing" fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Now can you explain how the Biden example meets it?
The simple contract that Biden 'offered':
a) Biden will abstain from preventing loan guarantees on the scale of $1 billion
IF
b) Viktor Shokin is fired (thus ending his investigation into burisma where Biden's son was being inexplicably paid)
Unlike Trump Biden did not release a recording of the conversation where this 'deal' was purportedly advanced, on the other hand Biden did allow himself to be recorded admitting it to a crowd:
"I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money" - Joseph Biden
Not very subtle, very unlike Trump's call which led plenty of reasonable doubt seeing as it was missing the threat and only contained a request.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Biden quid-pro-quoed to stop the truth from coming out, Trump's alleged quid-pro-quo was to bring the truth out.Do you even know what a quid pro quo is?
It's a trade + spookey bad cloud. Like greed is self-interest + spookey bad cloud.
The word that would apply for threatening to deprive entitled benefits or threatening to violate rights in exchange for something is "extortion".
In other words, the narrative that the FBI and more broadly the “deep state” or whatever we’re calling it, is out to get Trump must stand regardless of the facts.
Swatting Trump adds support to that narrative. When they hit him with some ridiculous evidence free charges in October that will also fit snugly into the narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
aka mumbojumbo crust with a nice creamy mysticism filling.The proof is in the pudding ----"creamy"--- the truth is in the Meta-space mind.
Uh huh, and in the meta-space mind ad populum is totally kosher, in fact it might be an infinite strawberry field for all you know.
P.S. I glanced over this AI stuff, reading stuff like that and also most of the body of commentary from Google has left me completely convinced they will not achieve AI, they don't even know the problem and that explain why their greatest "successes" have come from black-box neural networks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
a potential for a more wholistic consideration that is beyond the linear or branching processes of an algorithm aka complex biologic consciousness, that, may ask self-referencing questions, that may consider the shared commonalities of what it means to a living being with feelings, that, are resultants of all five or more senses exist in synergetic combinations.
aka mumbojumbo crust with a nice creamy mysticism filling.
I suspect that whatever cannot be said clearly is probably not being thought clearly either. - Peter Singer (and according to oromagirules I've just invoked a "great man" so anything I may have asserted is now unassailable)
The only important part in this paragraph is "wholistic", referring to the whole.
This isn't a different part of reasoning off in it's own pen safe from the silly baffonary of "pure reason", it's intrinsic to rationality and always has been. To think otherwise is only an indication of a perverse philosophical education.
It's very simple: There is one reality, and the rational creature should not be content to accept contradictions between any of his beliefs because to do so would be to tolerate believing falsehood.
Any example one might bring forward of "common sense" vs "logic" can easily and immediately be restated in full context to show that the correct answer is logical and the wrong answer is not.
This whole inane discussion almost needs to be recorded for posterity, it's like saying "real numbers aren't the whole picture, there are also integers"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain: I see your ADOL point you're completely right about everything. You're not a nutjob at all!
You see I believe all that to be true, but It's still a lie to pretend you said it. The quote above is fabricated evidence, if I tried to get a warrant by submitting fabricated evidence that's lying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Ramshutu: I’m confused - does the FBIs word mean nothing or not?
Well I didn't mean that literally, it was a figure of speech meaning they are not honest or trustworthy. I consider them an enemy of the free people of the world
and I carefully consider what they say as one should study one's enemy. What they try to make you believe can allow you to infer their targets and vulnerabilities.
When I say "they" I make it sound as if it is monolith, obviously that is not true.
If it was monolithic parts of it probably wouldn't have investigated Clinton at all, but the agenda is revealed when it investigates; finds criminal behavior, and then walks away whistling.
That, along with the now overwhelming body of other evidence tells you that the FBI overall is entirely captured. By whom and what exactly is hard to say but from their actions one can say that they hate DJT and prefer democrats to republicans but prefer continued war above all else.
Thus I attribute the investigation and the findings on Clinton to a powerless fragment and the decision to not refer charges to the anti-liberal infiltrators.
It's not all that complicated to figure out which actions are the dying gasps of a legitimate police force vs the whim of the fascist hit squad that is replacing them: The fascist hit-squad comes at their targets with overwhelming force, hundreds of times the manpower needed; often armored and armed with assault rifles. The flaunt their assertions, call media organizations before attacking, and gleefully engage in defamation via perp-walks.
IwantRooseveltagain: That’s a lie. They did not lie to the FISA Court.
IwantRooseveltagain: And the fact you think the “secret” FISA Court shouldn’t exist flags you as a nut job.
And do those you brand as nutjobs often recant after being informed that you think so of them? That's a rhetorical question no need to answer.
You probably have no idea how many unusual things I deeply believe, let's get a few out of the way so you can sleep snug at night ignoring me: Taxes are theft, CO2 does not cause planetary warming, and land cannot be truly owned as someone's product or body can be. (this list is not exhaustive)
IwantRooseveltagain:If you think Hilary was guilty then you must really think Trump is guilty of worse “X”.
No I really don't because as I explain above attacking Trump is the agenda along with protecting Hilary. Any heat Hilary (or the Bidens) seem to have gotten from the FBI (or any of the evil alphabet agencies) is a testament only to the overwhelming and poorly hidden criminal activity they have participated in.
The difference can be explained by observing the effective decision engine of the FBI leadership:
Deepstate friendly?
Evidence of actual wrongdoing? = Yes
Charges from obscure laws/theatrical raids/media tipoffs/extorted confessions? = No
Deepstate hostile?
Evidence of actual wrongdoing? = No
Charges from obscure laws/ theatrical raids/media tipoffs/extorted confessions? = Yes
The winds of fate have given us not one but two comparative examples where Trump has been accused of doing something bad/illegal after a prominent democrat rival actually committed the crime Trump was accused of. There are telling differences even in the accusation though:
Hilary uses her own unsecured serve for top secret stuff, but this fact was only a highlight against the backdrop that she was destroying evidence.
Trump (allegedly) takes some top secret documents to Florida, forgets to declassify them, doesn't give them to the national archives fast enough so they waco it like he was going to destroy the documents?
Biden brags that he got a prosecutor fired (thus ending his investigation) by threatening to withhold aid
Trump is accused of threatening to withhold aid if an investigation isn't conducted
Hilary was caught covering her tracks, Trump was 'caught' not covering his tracks. Hilary was never raided, they gave her all the time in the world and even when the investigation showed she tried hard to erase evidence the FBI had oh-so-much understanding.
Biden quid-pro-quoed to stop the truth from coming out, Trump's alleged quid-pro-quo was to bring the truth out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
She didn’t, at least to any significant degree in the opinion of the FBI.
And the FBI has been caught framing people, lying to secret courts (that shouldn't exist) so the FBI's word means nothing. In fact the FBI report said she did X (and X is a crime) but that she didn't mean to do X, intent was not required for X to be a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I really wish I knew what misinformed souls are liking your posts here so I can remember not to expect too much of them.
One of the flavors of "reasonable" is a synonym for "common sense" and another is "agreeable", the definition of "reasonable" that refers to reasoning is synonymous with "logical".
You attempt to reduce your original assertion that logic is not reasonable to noting that all arguments are set within a context (the premises) that may be false for reasons of "priority or scale, scope or impact". This is dishonest.
As for your appeal to authority, I have explained before and I will link back to that explanation on request why it is in all cases useless for the purposes of debate. You merely prove it as you are cornered into whining "but he's so great", it's a pathetic bait to turn things towards red herrings of character and expertise.
You didn't understand how Asimov was using the word "reasonable" in that sentence, if he had used it the way you assumed it he could have been wrong; if the words were defined differently you could have been right about the usage of the words, but you would still been profoundly wrong in your epistemological attacks on logic.
There is no other path to truth, and any attempt to demonstrate that there is attempts to stand on logic (whether it finds a foothold or not). That is what an axiom is, an inescapable premise.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
No- but to the the extent that logic is always dangerous to tyrannies, pure logic doesn't enjoy the freedom of expression that only healthy democracies guarantee. Logic depends on democracy for validation and correction for public policy applications. Strictly logical decision-making is unsustainable in a democracy because not all logic is reasonable. Infinity is logical but not reasonable. The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.
Logic has no dependencies, non-contradiction is an axiom at the root of identification. All relational conceptualization requires it. In other words it is not possible to think without it. All one can do is think one thought and then be contented thinking another contradicting thought.
It makes more sense to say orbital mechanics or addition depends on democracy.
It is reminiscent of the monotheist's appeal to faith or the subjectivist appeal to perception. Logic is the god of thinking, and placing anything above it is little more than disguised rejection of it. Like them you will no doubt be content to repeat that I can't make you do anything, if you want to accept a contradiction by damn you can do it!
Avoiding wasting time with people like you is one of the excellent reasons to not give the slightest nod to democracy in the context of debate, if you want a poll post a poll. Don't waste my time if you don't care what is true.
Let the honest observer try to reconcile:
oromagi: PRO will show that a disturbing number of officials, from the god-damned President of the United States on down, were willing to claim fraud.
oromagi: PRO will argue the consensus of the local, state, and Federal governments of the United States of America.
oromagi: Sorry, bud. I know MAGA feeds on feelings of persecution but trust me when I tell you that you are miscasting MAGA as the Jews of Europe, however thoroughly Trumpists are suited to pantomime a different role in any narrative involving Beer Hall Putsches and Kristallnachts.
You can't even follow a thought experiment without fabricating simplistic propaganda....
Created:
-->
@oromagi
1.) I thought all 10 posters on this site had been informed, for the record: I don't do debates with votes. Logic is not a democracy.
2.) Whether or not it was stolen my points in this thread remain. If it was not stolen but AOC was the leader of an insurrection allowing her to participate in congress would still be unconstitutional and thus a mob attempting to prevent the unconstitutional proceedings would be protecting the constitution not violating it. This is why historically and predictably once political opponents have started to regularly accuse each other of treason, sedition, and insurrection; civil war is soon to follow.
3.) The BoP you wrote in the intro is silly. It is not silly that you defined a BoP, it is silly that you translated "Not Stolen" to "PRO will argue the consensus of the local, state, and Federal governments of the United States of America." which essentially means: "Pro will show that nobody with the authority to act acted in an official capacity as if it was stolen"
Imagine you had a Pro "Jews in 1938 Germany were not mistreated" and went on to explain in your BoP that what you meant by that was that nobody in the German government acted to protect Jews (so clearly they were not mistreated).
The missing premise is laughable: That if it was stolen or the Jews were mistreated the people who should have done something about it would necessarily have done something about it.
"The item couldn't have been stolen, the police said they didn't see anything getting stolen." Were they in a position to see anything? Would they have had the courage and motivation to report it if they had?
"PRO will be obligated to demonstrate electoral fraud by Democrats on a scale sufficient to overturn the published result"
Assuming that meant "CON" otherwise PRO is doomed.
So you write the resolution as a negative, take the pro position, and then try to push the relevant BoP back on to CON?
If CON met this burden, what would the consensus of bureaucrats matter? Why not word the resolution as "The election was stolen" and take the CON position? The triple negative only serves to confuse analysts.
In the end there are two types of people whom can definitively be branded as fools: Those who claim they are certain the election was stolen, and those who claim they are certain it was not.
If you think you can prove by argument, using only public evidence, that it was not stolen I am certain I can debunk your arguments.
A much more important debate to have, and one that can reach a deductive result, is the resolution: The 2020 election could have been stolen, and knowing whether it was after the fact was rendered effectively impossible by the interaction of long standing flaws and changed practices pushed by democrats.
If that statement is true, then the future course of action is the same whether 2020 was stolen or not.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
yeah, don't know much about CHAZ. Judging by arrest records and hospitalizations seems like it was mostly a bunch of teenaged white boys from the suburbs calling themselves anarchists, right? Boys that age are like that.
Recall from post:
oromagi: The army, pathetic as it was, and the intent to separate from the US Constitution are well documented facts.
Your gravitational-wave-inducing spin is quite obvious.
Actual insurrection being declared from people holding actual assault rifles = "boys will be boys"
A riot from unarmed people where only the unarmed rioters died = "an army trying to separate from the constitution"
It would take an especially poor capacity for self-reflection for you to not notice this warping.
Jan 6 was organized by the President of the United States to the perpetual heartache of every lover of freedom and liberty.
Absurd
You can make your excuses for him
Facts are stubborn things and so am I when I repeat them.
You can make your excuses for him but ultimately he was the only one person in America with the power to make Jan 6 happen and the only one person that could have stopped it, stopped it any point he wanted, stopped it at will.
It is amazing how many layers of error you have wrapped yourself in:
Error 1: Trump told anyone to riot, organized a riot, led the people to the capitol.
Truth 1: The capitol mob were at the whitehouse and left the whitehouse because they cared more about shouting at Congress than listening to Trump. They/I left Trump behind.
Error 2: Trump chose not admonish violence and tell people to disperse.
Truth 2: Trump told people to go home. Trump told people to be peaceful.
Error 3: If Trump had told people to go home they would have gone home.
Truth 3: Trump did tell people to go home, but since they left him, and were rioting/protesting they were not listening to him nor did they much care when they did hear it. They were not robots, and Trump was not their master.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Post #31 of this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7823/post-links/337045
The army, pathetic as it was, and the intent to separate from the US Constitution are well documented facts.
In post #41 I related the bolded proposition to the recognition of the CHAZ.
To reiterate: Since you claimed in post #31 that the intent was to separate from the US Constitution on Jan 6 you imply that the proceedings which were to be interrupted were the embodiment of the constitution which in turn implied that sedition had not already rendered prior members of congress usurpers by that point.
I suppose you could claim that you are not equivocating attempting to stop the proceedings with "separating from the US Constitution" (aka sedition), but I had dismissed that possibility because people were certainly not going around on Jan 6 explicitly saying "The Constitution is the problem, forget it", certainly not Trump.
Regardless I have my answer:
ADOL: In that case what are your rational grounds in failing to recognize the CHAZ as a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?oromagi: I had to look up what a CHAZ was.
If you did not know what the CHAZ/CHOP was you failed to recognize it as a rebel army because you failed to recognize it in any sense.
Now you may know what it is, but since your sources are suspect I will summarize: The CHAZ was a chunk of territory explicitly marked off by various militias and mobs as being free from all federal, state, and municipal law. That is quintessential separation from the constitution, again also known as sedition.
Keep in mind I'm not using these words for moral impact. Loyalty to paper is not a virtue. Sedition from an evil organization is a moral good. I'm merely observing a political fact. Sedition = rejection of the social contract a government claims binds you. Insurrection is the violent pursuit of sedition.
Sedition is not the same thing as accepting the social contract but claiming the government is corrupt or illegitimate. As with all conflicts over legitimacy each side will call the other illegitimate but that is a different category from people who clearly reject the proposed social contract entirely.
CHAZ people would pee on the constitution, MAGA rioters would wear it as a cape. The former rejects the contract, the later contests legitimacy. The former is necessarily seditious, the later may be depending on the facts (or more cynically depending on who wins).
In the European wars of succession almost no one claimed to be fighting to overturn a feudal holding since almost all of them claimed to be fighting to restore the true lord to his/her possessions. They fought over legitimacy not social contract.
Now to the point your ignorance has delayed: The standard applied to Trump and to the Jan 6 mob is absurd, because it is absurd it leads to absurd conclusions when equally applied. The most absurd part about it is the connection between telling people to protest and being held as an accomplice for anything any one of them may do from that point on.
Maxine Waters told people to get in politicians faces and praised protests that turned into violent riots. She did not tell anyone to pick up a gun and declare the constitution void in a certain area.
Trump told people to march peacefully. He did not tell anyone to knock down a door. He also did not tell them to abandon the constitution and no one claimed they were trying to abandon the constitution (which is surprising given the number of people and the amount of recordings).
CHAZ was technical insurrection, but it had no organizer in office. Jan 6 was not an insurrection, and the riot had no organizer in office.
Created: