Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Don't you have some prostitutes to chase? Maybe a Slovenian one?
Trump did that!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, Putin will fix the damage Biden caused, and it will be glorious.
Did you move to Russia yet to escape Biden's oppression and find freedom?
No?
What are you waiting for?
Are you trying to make USA to be free like Russia?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
meaning that the evidence supports the claim by more than 50%
Oh, so now there is evidence which says that Trump is likely an abuser.
This is a big step for you, since previously you guys claimed there is no evidence at all.
Now try to say that evidence supports the claim by 90%.
Take small steps in your path of proving Trump's guilt!
Created:
Posted in:
Well, at least you finally admit that you guys are helping Putin.
Not that it wasnt already obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I heard Trump is going to pardon Putin. The tears will surely flow then!
Well, at least you finally admit that you guys are helping Putin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Harris was in charge of a nationwide drug trafficking operation that brought in nearly $2 million daily.
Sounds like someone Trump would pardon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
OMG, do think Gp and ADOL work for the Cartel?
I think they work for Putin and just promote everything that harms USA.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
And we wonder why all the women have left this site !
What woman doesnt want to listen to Gp's endless conspiracy theories, link spam, whining, promoting civil wars, and lying about rape victims?
Created:
The proof in science follows premises which often get confused by people.
This is not going to be simple to explain, but lets start.
Incorrect proof
Lets start with first explaining what isnt proof.
Example:
A causes B.
Conclusion: B exists, therefore A exists.
Its like saying:
On day when it rains, some of the ground will be wet.
Some of the ground is wet today, so it rained today.
This is false reasoning.
Ground can be wet because someone spilled water on it, because soil is usually naturally wet even when it isnt raining, because there is snow left from yesterday... and so on.
Just because A causes B, doesnt lead to conclusion that if B exists, A exists.
Thats because something other than A can also cause B.
The correct way is:
Only A causes B.
In this case, if B exists, A exists.
Another incorrect way of proving is:
A includes B.
B exists, therefore A exists.
This is a very wrong way of proof.
Thats because other things can include B too, and A is unproven to exist, so unproven to include B.
Its like saying:
On days when it rains, ground is wet.
Ground is wet today, so it rained.
The correct way, again, is:
Only A includes B and A must include B.
As long as something other than A can include B, existence of A is unproven.
As long as it is possible for A not to include B, as long as it is possible for B to exist without A, A is unproven.
Another incorrect way of proof is:
If A, then B.
B exists, so A exists.
For same reasons as before, this is incorrect.
Now, lets move to correct proof.
Correct proof
Lets look at first example:
Premise: If A, then B.
Conclusion: A exists, so B exists.
This is correct conclusion as long as premise is correct.
Other correct forms are:
If A exists, then B doesnt exist.
A exists, so B doesnt.
If A doesnt exist, B exists.
A doesnt exist, so B exists.
If A doesnt exist, B doesnt exist.
A doesnt exist, so B doesnt exist.
In all 3 cases, the existence or non-existence of A derermines existence or non-existence of B.
Second example:
Premise: If A, then B.
Conclusion: B doesnt exist, so A doesnt exist.
As long as premise is correct, conclusion is correct.
Third example:
Premise: If A, then B doesnt exist.
Conclusion: B exists, so A doesnt.
Correct conclusion.
Fourth example:
Premise: If A doesnt exist, then B exists.
Conclusion: B doesnt exist, so A exists.
Final example about "if" way of proof:
Premise: If A doesnt exist, then B doesnt exist.
Conclusion: B exists, therefore A exists.
Now lets move to inclusion proof.
First:
Premise: A includes B.
Conclusion: A exists, so B exists.
Second:
Premise: A includes that B doesnt exist.
Conclusion: A exists, so B doesnt exist.
Third:
Premise: Lack of A includes that B exists.
Conclusion: A doesnt exist, so B does.
Fourth:
Premise: Lack of A includes that B doesnt exist.
Conclusion: A doesnt exist, so B doesnt exist.
Other ways of proof are:
A includes B.
If B doesnt exist, then A doesnt.
Lack of A includes B.
If B doesnt exist, A exists.
A includes lack of B.
If B exists, A doesnt.
Lack of A includes lack of B.
If B exists, A exists.
Lets move onto proof by options.
There are:
Option 1
Option 2
One must be true and the other must be false. There are no other options. If one is true, the other is false.
Disproving option 1 proves option 2.
Disproving option 2 proves option 1.
Proving option 1 disproves option 2.
Proving option 2 disproves option 1.
Those are the standards of scientific proof, as taken from basic laws of logic.
Any questions, feel free to ask.
I felt the need to explain the difference between proof and non-proof, to clear up common logical errors which happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
wept as he thanked the former commander-in-chief and discussed the lessons he learned from his incarceration.
What lesson did he learn?
That crime goes unpunished?
Created:
Posted in:
Ah yes, the mighty copy paste.
Lol
Created:
How do you go from threating with civil war to threating with copy paste?
Its like watching a lion turn into a bunny.
Created:
Tell you what you are going to get your very own copy-paste
Aww cute
Created:
Sorry, I dont want to respond to bunch of assumptions.
You again lied that she said "rape is sexy", while lying that you didnt claim how she wanted to be raped, while lying about her that she has a rape fetish, and again you assumed that people who were raped cant have rape fetish to support that she wasnt raped by again lying that she has a rape fetish.
You are trully a damaged individual.
You probably dont even know how stupid you sound to normal people who read your comments.
Created:
it might occur to you that people who have been raped probably don't have a rape fetish
So you assume that, and again assume that she has a rape fetish in an attempt to present her as a liar.
If only assumptions counted as proof.
Created:
Saying that rape victim wanted to roleplay rape is also a horrible way of defending Trump, since you are assuming something person never said in an attempt to present her as the guilty one for being raped.
If what you were saying was irrelevant to her being raped, then one can just wonder why did you say it.
And one must also wonder why you lied that she said "rape is sexy", but a sick mind such as yours wants to do everything to make the victim look guilty.
Created:
"He presented her as a person who has a rape fetish."
"She gave hints to that herself. I saw the clip where she was cut off on public broadcast before she could explain further."
Well, saying that rape victim gave hints of wanting to be raped is a horrible way to defend Trump, but whats to be expected of MAGA.
Created:
Posted in:
Ask people in 2020.
66% disapproval rate for Trump.
Now, its clever how your friend Putin invaded Ukraine and blamed it on Biden.
Being blamed because you help an invaded country to defend itself is indeed the new propaganda method which by all standards helps the invader Putin.
Its true that Biden didnt handle Israel situation good, but lets not pretend that Trump wouldnt support Israel.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most people would never say such a thing
No, thats not the difference between the two sentences and its not even relevant, but thanks for playing.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That’s white fragility for you.
Its just sad.
Guys think they can promote civil war, mock rape victims, tell endless lies...
But one little indirect insult crosses the line.
Thats what happens when person draws line for others but not for themselves.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
CARROLL: I think most people think of rape as "being sexy."
Lets play spot the difference.
"I think rape is sexy."
"Most people think of rape as "being sexy"".
What is the difference in these two sentences?
Common, try your best to spot the difference.
Created:
Ah, the civil war dude blocked me.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Civil war? Let's remember the context:[GreyParrot] Why do you support a broken system?You answered "Hey it doesn't hurt me" (Yet, wait for it)
No, I answered:
"Because I live well and dont prefer the alternative which you are offering?"
I mean, I gotta give you the credit.
You thought I forgot what I said, so you tried to twist it.
Still, it was just few comments ago, so I cant really give you any intelligence points, just points for effort.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman a weirdo?
Yes.
Created:
Paradox just means something which is harder to explain.
Its very hard to explain the movement paradox, but we can move so there is obviously an explanation for how we move.
Each move can be divided on smaller moves, and so on to infinity, making it "impossible" to perform a move that has endless moves.
There are infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, so going from 1 to 2 is "impossible".
Yet it is possible to move.
People often confuse paradox with contradiction, but the two are not same.
Paradox is just something which assumes contradiction where there doesnt have to be one.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's what Carol thinks. She even called rape "sexy" on CNN
I mean, if you have to lie this much, that already means you are wrong.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"Who cares if you are suffering? I don't have to think about those kinds of things.
Well, am I supposed to cry because you arent allowed to have a civil war?
And how does a guy who supports bestiality end up in a Christian party?
Like, which part of you thought "oh these guys are gonna love me"?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly. BK only represents the laziest faction of Democrats.
Yes, the aristocracy.
Created:
Posted in:
Respecting free will is a myth.
First, if God respects free will which prevents him from taking actions which violate it, why did he create diseases and laws about death penalty?
If respecting free will means not doing anything which violates free will, why does he send people to hell?
That violates their free will for infinite amount of time.
Then the question follows, why are there two worlds?
This world and the afterlife.
If this world is morally perfect, then afterlife shouldnt exist and is unnecessary, and this world should be eternal.
If afterlife is morally perfect world, then why delay that world by creating this world?
Free will isnt mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
It might be slightly implied by covenants, but the exact term is never mentioned.
Its a made up invention in desperate attempt to solve the problem of evil.
But problem of evil cannot be solved in any way, because existence of evil caused by God cannot be rationally denied in any way.
Omnibenevolent God cannot do action which contains evil.
Giving free will to humans contains evil.
Even creating people who will do evil is an action which contains evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Doesn't seem like you can be as merciful as God.
Well, God burns atheists, so I would say that his mercy isnt that good either.
Do you think that atheists will go to hell?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you support a broken system?
Because I live well and dont prefer the alternative which you are offering?
If they wanted to raise taxes on the rich, they would have done it 70 years ago
And your alternative raises taxes on the rich?
Last time I checked, it was Trump who did tax cuts on the rich.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Creating a logical system based on assumptions is somewhat usefull, because you can explore the implications of you assumptions
Thats called building facts from assumptions.
"If assumption A is true, then B follows."
This claim can be a fact even if assumption A isnt a fact, even if assumption A is wrong.
B doesnt follow, therefore, assumption A is wrong.
You mentioned global flood.
"Global flood happened" is an assumption.
"If global flood happened, there would be traces of it" is a claim which is a fact.
So facts can be built from assumptions, but they must still be facts as a whole.
Now, regarding the global flood from Christian view, you have to understand that you are dealing with people who believe in magic.
In their view, God, for some reason, removed all traces of flood after flood happened, and God also created traces of evolution despite that, in their view, evolution didnt happen.
So one is only left with a question why would God do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We live in times where wrong is called right
Well, you will always live in those times, since any two or more people with different opinions guarantee that they must consider each other's opinion wrong and their own right.
I guess you want to live in North Korea where everyone thinks the same, so everyone is right and considers everyone else right.
Is that it?
You want to turn USA into North Korea with Trump monarch family ruling it?
Well, now we know why Trump said that he respects Kim Jong Un and is impressed by how North Koreans worship Kim Jong Un.
Trump wants to be Kim Jong Un of America.
And he is half way there.
He already has 60 million MAGA calling him "God Emperor Trump".
If he could only convince the other, more sane part of USA.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Trump thinks that taxes should be payed by poor people.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
To be president with such low approval requires some mad skills.
When Biden wins again in 2024, will you move to Russia?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You could even say Biden saved Democracy with his stupidity
You call Biden stupid, but only one of you became president and defeated Russia.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Yes.
But many choose reasoning based on assumptions instead.
I am saying that reasoning should have facts as premises, not assumptions as premises.
While anyone can create truisms or search for facts, many people cant tell the difference between facts and assumptions.
In fact, many choose to support assumptions with assumptions, which doesnt get them any closer to reasoning based on facts.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Savants are often very limited in what they can do successfully.
Glad you concede that more intelligence doesnt guarantee more success and more stupidity doesnt guarantee more failure.
But of course, in your world, Trump is smarter than Einstein and anyone else.
He is your God.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Lets just remember that Trump inherited a fortune and had lots of help, both in form of money and guidance, from rich daddy and rich social circle.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just one became President though.
You assume presidents are elected according to intelligence?
It would be shocking if far left Marxist indoctrinators had anything good to say about any successful Capitalist
You assume a successful capitalist cant be stupid?
So by logic, if smarter = more successful, why wasnt Einstein president nor billionare?
Take your time.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Why won't Trump release his grades from college?
If they were any good, he would release them.
He is the classical example of rich boy who gets in good school because daddy payed good amount of money, and professors are instructed to take extra effort to make sure he doesnt completely fail.
Created:
Posted in:
On the other hand, with aliens real, we get closer to Star Wars universe.
Created:
Posted in:
I am not sure if I would like if advanced aliens turn out to be real.
The meeting of advanced and backward civilizations rarely goes well for backward civilizations.
I am kinda hoping that we are more advanced.
Created:
I want to make this as simple as possible, so I will start by explaining reasoning first.
Reasoning usually comes in form of premises and conclusion.
Deductive reasoning is more logically accurate, but it can be based on assumptions.
Example:
Premise 1:
If it rains today, I will bring an umbrella.
Premise 2:
It rains today.
Conclusion:
I will bring an umbrella.
We see that as long as premise 1 and premise 2 are true, conclusion logically follows.
So is this reasoning based on facts?
No, not even close.
This is because none of the premises are proven to be true.
Premise 2 is an assumption.
There is no proof it rains today.
Premise 1 is an assumption too.
There is no proof that I will bring an umbrella if it rains.
It is not disproven that it rains today and I wont bring an umbrella because I forgot and was in a rush, or maybe I just like walking in rain without an umbrella, or it didnt rain much and I figured I wouldnt need it.
So since every premise is essentially unproven assumption, this reasoning is based on assumptions.
The other form of reasoning, without the use of "if" would be inclusion, category reasoning.
Premise 1:
I will bring an umbrella on days when it rains.
Premise 2:
It rains today.
Conclusion:
I will bring an umbrella today.
Despite changing from "if" to inclusion, it still stands that every premise is an assumption.
The claim "I will bring an umbrella" is included in category "on days when it rains".
But this inclusion is an assumption.
It could be possible that there are days when it rains and I dont bring an umbrella, therefore making the premise an assumption.
Since its not proven that I will bring an umbrella on days when it rains, the premise is essentially unproven.
Another form of reasoning is options reasoning, which is "this or that".
Example:
Premise 1:
It wont rain
or
I will bring an umbrella.
Premise 2:
It rains.
Conclusion:
I will bring an umbrella.
Since "or" in this reasoning means that when one option is true, the other is false,
when "it wont rain" is false, then "I will bring an umbrella" is true.
But premise 1 is still an assumption, because both options can be true.
It can be true both that "it wont rain" and that "I will bring an umbrella", since people can obviously bring an umbrella even on days it doesnt rain.
Also, they can both be false.
It can be false that it "it wont rain" and it can at the same time be false that "I will bring an umbrella".
So what is reasoning based on facts?
Its reasoning where every premise is a fact.
Example:
Premise 1:
Sun exists.
or
It is false that Sun exists.
Premise 2:
Sun exists
Conclusion:
The claim "It is false that Sun exists" is not true.
Premise 1 is a fact, since Sun can logically either exist either not exist, but not both and not neither.
Premise 2 is a fact, since Sun is observable to exist.
Conclusion then logically follows.
So, reasoning based on facts is reasoning where every premise is an observable fact, and conclusion logically follows from true premises.
This reasoning uses "if" premise when that premise can be observed.
For example, when we observe that "if there is source of light, there will be light".
It uses inclusion when inclusion can be observed.
Example:
"Not all dogs have tail"
It uses "or" when logically, options are presented which cant all be true,
where one of them must be true, where all except one are false,
where there are no other options, such as Sun which either exists either doesnt.
That is reasoning where every premise is an observable fact.
Created:
-->
@philochristos
Its true that revenge feels good.
It probably comes as part of old instinct,
since most animals take a sort of revenge on other animals who bully them.
Animals who dont defend themselves would probably get more bullied.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The only conceivable scenario of printing money that isn't theft
Well, by your standards, taxes are theft too.
So, I am curious, how does a state exist without taxes and without printing money?
Voluntary donations?
This can be achieved by a "reverse sales tax" in which a small percentage of each sale is paid for with newly minted money
A fine idea.
Unrelated to the topic, but how do you feel about printed money used as universal basic income?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If Germany had attacked Poland in 1940 because the Poles repeatedly refused to reduce their taxes, Germany would have been right to do so.
Lol
If the US was a moral government (where everyone agreed with my policy proposals), and we didn't have the means to integrate mass migration into our economy I would proclaim this binding policy: We accept economic refugees without question, but we count every one and where they came from. We assign points proportional to the excess of what we have determined we can integrate. When we get to 5X the number we have set for integration, we invade and annex the country of origin with the most points.
Lol
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"Rape survivors who speak out about their assault experiences are often punished for doing so when they are subjected to negative reactions from support providers.
These negative reactions may thereby serve a silencing function, leading some rape survivors to stop talking about their experiences to anyone at all.
The current study sought to examine this worst case scenario.
Focusing on the qualitative narratives of eight rape survivors who initially disclosed the assault but then stopped disclosing for a significant period of time, this study sought to provide an in-depth description of how negative reactions silenced these survivors.
Three routes to silence were identified:
1) negative reactions from professionals led survivors to question whether future disclosures would be effective;
2) negative reactions from friends and family reinforced feelings of self-blame;
and 3) negative reactions from either source reinforced uncertainty about whether their experiences qualified as rape.
Implications for future research and practice are discussed."
Study from 2006.
Lets pretend that rape victims had more support in 1996.
I lived in 1996
If only personal unverifiable experience counted as proof in debates.
Created:
I am curious, would anyone support the government action of giving printed money to all buisnesses?
So any buisness which earns more than certain amount of money and employs more than certain amount of workers would gain additional money from the government.
Would you agree with this system?
And what amount of money would you agree that buisnesses receive?
Should it be more money to bigger buisnesses, or same for all, or per employed workers?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
Demonize the victim because she was raped at the time when most people would blame her for being raped?
Demonize the victim because she didnt behave in the way you would expect her to?
Demonize the victim because she was raped in circumstances where rape victims didnt have any support, and because she had no way of dealing with it at the time?
Created: