Ramshutu

the inevitable occurred: Parents learned just how radical the curriculum was, and they have obviously rebelled in large numbers

I said it all

“the inevitable occurred: Parents learned just how radical the curriculum was, and they have obviously rebelled in large numbers.”

There might good reasons not to plant trees in communities without:

• The environment might not be suitable for tree growth
  
• The trees may create a recurring expense for upkeep
  

What you’re doing is declaring that it is unreasonable because it’s been pointed out that minorities have disproportionately fewer trees (which is factually accurate)

That is a wild assertion, not a fact. But it shows that you are supporting the idea that the government should enforce equality of outcomes based on racial categories.

I have not implied any of these things, nor do I agree with them. All I said was that planting trees is not inherently bad, which means that the problem, the motivation, and the solution is not uncontroversial.

Where did you hear those figures?

I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine:

Or are you trying to make something unreasonable sound reasonable? 

What is considered to be a lot of money. Because some people would see $3 billion as a lot of money

This perfectly illustrates today's antiracism:

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

Something tells me you have a lot of personal debt.

and money for planting trees in neighbourhood that don’t have them doesn’t really sound unreasonable does it?

There's nothing inherently wrong with planting trees. However, spending $3 billion that we don't have to fight racism by planting trees sounds very unreasonable. Spending like this is the reason our debt really goes in only one direction.

So on the back of a post that blasts the left for making everything about race: you suggest that planting trees in communities that don’t have them is racist? Is the irony lost in you?

I didn't make it about race.

This policy gave resources to some people while simultaneously withholding those same resources from others, all based on the color of one's skin.

Was this policy racist?

You mean taking issue with increasing the national debt? Some people may only take issue with that when the other side is in power. However, I think the national debt should be a pressing concern for both sides, and both are terrible at addressing it. But I have a bigger issue with what appears to be the justification for spending such large amounts of money. That is, addressing racial inequities such as the concentration of trees.

What I'm saying is that if the goal is to ensure the equality of outcomes between racial groups, the government must enact discriminatory policies. If white people have more of something, the government must take some of that thing away from white people, give some of that thing to black people, or both until the disparity is eliminated. Such a policy discriminates based on skin color, which most people would consider racist.

If the policy specifically stated that the entirety of that $3 billion must to go to black communities and could not go to white communities, would you consider that policy racist?

I only meant that someone who is not an American would not necessarily have the same concerns about the massive national debt as an American. That is a significant factor in analyzing such a policy in the context of the American economy, though not the only one.

But yeah, if there is equality in community environment, what’s next?? Infant mortality? Access to housing? voting rights? Where will it end!

Why should the government enact discriminatory policies in order to ensure equality of outcomes? Because that is the only way to eliminate all disparities between racial groups.

I suppose you don't have any skin in the game since it appears you are a Canadian. But people who are concerned about government spending and the increasing national US debt should be concerned about this since these types of policies will not stop at tree equity.

Are you saying we should continue to spend billions of dollars on issues like tree equity?

it appears your objection wasn’t actually objection.

Concession? You sure like to read between lines that are not there. My #119:

"We" who? You and your sock puppet? Congress acts by non-action by pre-empting money that should go into the SS funds, and only they can do it. My argument in a nutshell. That you fail to see the nuance of robbery by their lack of action is entirely on you and your puppet.

But I will say you’re insulting everyone’s intelligence if you expect anyone to beleive:

With the addition of employers' matching contribution, overt a career, the SS payout is almost entirely funded by employees and employers, plus interest earned,  so there was no reason for the funds to deplete, except that the government has continuously robbed from the contributions for other purposes

And:

I note you have ignored that the SS funds, which should have been left alone, have been robbed for years - a couple of generations -  by Congress to fund other spending programs they love to enact. The program as designed should have been self-sustaining, and would have been but for robbery, in spite of boomers. Boomers created more contributions, too.

… were not talking about Congress withdrawing money from the ss fund.

With the addition of employers' matching contribution, overt a career, the SS payout is almost entirely funded by employees and employers, plus interest earned,  so there was no reason for the funds to deplete, except that the government has continuously robbed from the contributions for other purposes

I note you have ignored that the SS funds, which should have been left alone, have been robbed for years - a couple of generations -  by Congress to fund other spending programs they love to enact. The program as designed should have been self-sustaining, and would have been but for robbery, in spite of boomers. Boomers created more contributions, too.

This appears to be an issue you're having with several people, which, given the similarity of your "I don't know..." conditions, appears to be an issue closer to home than to any of us. Just sayin'...

Nonetheless, morality is data

You said this buddy, I didn’t make it up out of thin air.

Nonetheless, morality is data assessment and output, and therefore variable relative to data input.

Congress has not acted to revise the system, thus leaving less accumulation of SS payouts

What would you call it?

With the addition of employers' matching contribution, overt a career, the SS payout is almost entirely funded by employees and employers, plus interest earned,  so there was no reason for the funds to deplete, except that the government has continuously robbed from the contributions for other purposes

I note you have ignored that the SS funds, which should have been left alone, have been robbed for years - a couple of generations -  by Congress to fund other spending programs they love to enact. The program as designed should have been self-sustaining, and would have been but for robbery, in spite of boomers. Boomers created more contributions, too.

explain the math.

I love how he left out that more people died from COVID under Joe Biden this year even with the vaccine being fully developed.

That's what some people think. Wrong. The truth is, the robbery has been indirect, not direct. No, Congress does not really have sticky fingers greedy for cash, but they do have malaise of purpose. That is, Congress has know for about 35 years that the SS funds would have a future shortfall if they did not act to update the entire system to adjust retirement age, investment portfolios, and/or contributions, but they have failed to act over those 35 years. Net result: less in reserves than there woulds be had they acted then. Meaning the shortfall is still ahead. Meaning that Congress has effectively ignored Peter while paying Paul [with more and more expensive spending schemes, i.e., wasting their time; an identical bad outcome that can be squarely blamed on Congress.

I note you have ignored that the SS funds, which should have been left alone, have been robbed for years - a couple of generations -  by Congress to fund other spending programs they love to enact. The program as designed should have been self-sustaining, and would have been but for robbery, in spite of boomers. Boomers created more contributions, too. Easy to ignore, I know, because everyone piles on boomers.

And while the labor force was at its historic maximum before Covid,  contributions were also at an increased level. The Biden admin is still about 4M jobs down from that max level. It doesn't help that he shut off the XL Pipeline and Anwar just to beg Opec to increase production. Production of oil and nat gas that is dirtier than ours. And I thought climate change was the greatest existential threat to us, according to that same Biden. Guess not. 

Nice, in principle, but, you ignore three things:

so there was no reason for the funds to deplete

Opposition is not the equivalent of dishonesty, much as Ram argues that it must be since I disagree with his assessment. 

• You repeatedly drop large chunks of relevant discussion out of replies and responses; focusing mainly on cherry picked sub elements that leave out most of the key context
  
• Ignore or dismiss entire  posts, and comprehensive arguments for nebulous reasons.
  
• Make broad and generic claims about your opponents argument - but repeatedly refuse to offer specific objections to the underlying claims being made.
  
• Argue as if the portions of the replies you have ignored don’t even exist; and continue to make or restate the arguments that have been repeatedly challenged and debunked.
  
• Repeatedly fail to address key and major fundamental issues that have been raised about your central arguments.
  
• Continue to repeatedly mischaracterize peoples arguments even after being corrected multiple times (and without defending the characterization)
  

1. Both side makes claim(s) and/or attacks the other claim(s)
   
2. Each side counters the criticism being levelled, and defends the validity of their attacks.
   
3. The cycle continues of attack and defence. Defending your position against criticism, and defending your criticism of the other claims.
   

The most valid statement made in that excessive verbosity. A fitting conclusion.

That you do not acknowledge the very clear difference between direct argument and rebuttal sufficiently ends any further need to say anything more

That you continue to argue for a theory that, frankly, implies limited potential of human imagination by your physics laws, which are not immutable, sufficiently ends any further need to say anything more

That you, by adherence to a limiting theory, cannot see that you argue for limitations, and that they are yours, sufficiently ends any further need to say anything more.

"Merely this and nothing more,

Quoth the Raven 'Nevermore.'"

Two posts, one verbose in the extreme, and, therefore, TLDR,

frankly, that both display an utter ignorance of additional styles of argument

traditional in debate, but informal and still a feature in a public forum.

I speak of a secondary method of argument: the rebuttal, in which the form is one of discrediting another's direct argument rather than argument in support of one's own position. Simply put, I'm attacking your argument of the alleged ability to "read" peoples' thoughts as evidence that determinism guides thought, not free will. I have demonstrated that your own source debunked the notion of detailed thought-reading at all, whether or not any particular "force" is at work. Since this is your only cited reference in support of your determinism,

I declare it a failed argument, becuase everything else you have offered, including the base theory of quantum physics of particles, forces, fields...

I repeat an earlier statement from my #18:

And my #58:

So far, these challenges have failed to be met.

I'll note for the record that my brother is a radiologist, and reads these scans all the time. I note in your source that only one example of a scan was offered of someone thinking about gossip, spirituality, and a screwdriver. Do you think the scans of other test subjects would be identical to these? As it happens, according to my brother, no, they are not identical. Peoples' thoughts truly are their own, individually. Professionals are able to see trends that allow them to diagnose properly, but if it were truly that easy as demonstrated by 60 Minutes' guests, a burger-flipper should be able to read and diagnose these scans. Nope, takes a professional.

Yes, let's. For example, though you have claimed to have offered scholastic sourcing to support your determinism, I find in review of this thread that you have addressed me on 22 posts, only one of which has a cited reference, and that referring to the CBS show, "60 Minutes," with Leslie Stahl reporting on FMRI "mind reading" in 2019.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/functional-magnetic-resonance-imaging-computer-analysis-read-thoughts-60-minutes-2019-11-24/

Within that article, a throwback to 2009 is offered, in which FMRI was said to "potentially show what a human being is thinking."  Potentially, not absolute, therefore, just theory.

Well, the article says test subjects were told to think about gossip, spirituality, and a screwdriver, then "read" the FMRI scan, saying, effectively, see, they're thinking about gossip, and spirituality, and a screwdriver. However, if the subjects had not been told, prior to the scan, what to think about, would they know what the thinking was? Apparently, not.

After all your hype, and 60 Minutes, the conclusion of the 2019 reference? When asked by Stahl if out thoughts were truly no longer our own, the guest said, "I think it will be technically impossible to invade peoples' thoughts." Still no more than potential, and perhaps a little less.

Oops. What a load of of a strawman; your favorite word, which you succumb to, yourself.

Meanwhile, would you like to review what I've offered as source material to support my argument?

I thought not.

I know you said you do not typically cite sources in Forum, but maybe it wouldn't hurt your argument to do so, because trhis doesn't cut it. Maybe you should be certain your source supports your argument rather than concluding it doesn't fly. At least, not yet.

“Let’s first start by pointing out that you absolutely no evidence, argument or justification for this claim - it’s completely made up, as there is absolutely no direct or indirect evidence that anything non physical happens in your brain, or can even exist. ”

I can’t prove that your brain does not have some hidden, thinky magic force that is non physical and acts as some force for free will. This is proving a negative; it’s not possible. You often suggest or imply that we need to disprove this; unfortunately as stated this is shifting the burden of proof

The key to my argument: is whether thought is the product of something physical, or is a hidden magic thinky force. There are indeed experiments with fMRI that I shared where a machine can work out the thing you are thinking about - conflating thought and thought process at this stage is just arbitrary question begging at this stage - but the crucial aspect is that your thinking and decision making is both impacted by physical changes to your brain; and readable through it.

You’re coming at this like an apologist - how can I explain this data in a way that my opinion can still be correct. I am coming at this like a scientists - what does the physical nature of the brain indicate? 

Indeed, these points offer potential for falsification - if neither of the above things were true it would help prove you right.

So in this respect, all these physical aspects and outcomes of the brain help establish the substantial credibility of arguing that there is no hidden magic thinky force - because the brain behaves as one would expect if there was none.

And to this objection, you effectively just continually parrot that I’m wrong because there is definitely a hidden magic force. Begging the question

When asked by Stahl if out thoughts were truly no longer our own, the guest said, "I think it will be technically impossible to invade peoples' thoughts." Still no more than potential, and perhaps a little less.

Lesley Stahl: Will it ever be possible to read someone's thoughts precisely?

Marcel Just: The thoughts are there precisely, if you could just get close enough to the electrical activity. 

Lesley Stahl: You think one day we'll figure out how to do that.

Marcel Just: Yes. 

Lesley Stahl: Which means that we'll never be able to have-- our thoughts completely secure within ourselves.

 

Marcel Just: I think it will be technologically possible to invade people's thoughts. But it's-- it's our societal obligation to make sure that never happens.

The blog post is effectively pointing out that we don’t really know what a thought is; and as a result we don’t know how to measure it. Given that I’m not suggesting we know what a thought is, or suggesting that we can directly measure thinking (as opposed to indirectly measuring it, which we can), your claim that I’m confused about it is a bit of a straw man as if misrepresents what I’m saying.

The blog post is, in no way, suggesting that thoughts aren’t the product of physical processes, or are the manifestation of magic thinky force - only drawing that specific distinction - which I mostly agree with. So as before, you share a link that doesn’t really affirm your position at all.

anyone is able to link a source of note; the trick is for it to be able to justify the argument you’re making. The only sources you’ve shared that I recall relate to brain chemistry: where you conflated “chemistry” as in the unique chemical composition of all our brains - which differs slightly between individuals - and “chemistry” as in the various laws of chemistry that describe the interaction of chemicals. Other than foot stamping; and, if I recall, not much else.

In this regard; your ability to copy and paste someone else’s opinion, is largely immaterial when one has no ability to apply it logically or correctly to an argument someone is making.

Feel free to link me the post where I argue for determinism that you feel I provided no justification: I will be more than happy to re-quote it, and list the nature of my argument where I justify my argument, and explain why. Without any specifics at all, it’s hard to comment.

This is just intellectually lazy; making broad claims without any real example or justification - at least when I tell you your begging the question I explain how - you can see that above. It’s actually the verbosity that provides that justification - I suspect you just tune out arguments.

Secondly; if you feel any of my statements of fact about reality are not factual; I will be happy to offer citations - I tend not to; because most uncontroversial statements do not need source material unless contested. Nothing I’ve said should be controversial - physical things operate by rules, those rules are repeatable, our brains appear to be physical things affected by physical events - everything else is just logic. Again, without specifics of what you claim is false - it’s hard to comment.

You clearly do not know how to distinguish the thought process, which I agree can be measured, and the content of a thought. I'm saying what cannot yet be measured is the content of thought, the information in a thought. https://sapienlabs.org/measuring-a-thought/.  "What is its relationship to information? Must a thought contain information?"

I ignored it because the statement is ridiculous. I have previously cited such an article - who knows, it may be the same one - in another thread, indicating that the measurement is not the manifest of thoughts, themselves, but that thinking is taking place.

There's a huge difference; kind of like the difference between premature effectuation and real learning that can be acted upon. There is no evidence demonstrated, yet, that thoughts, let alone the mind, itself, is resident in the brain. It is a measurement of the process, not the manifest details of the material of thought. I'm surprised you confuse the two, and argue the point.

Otherwise, as usual, TLDR. Verbosity may not be scholarship

Impeachment is inherently a political process

and per DR’s position the Constitution wouldn’t stop a hypothetical impeachment of George Washington.

You do you my man. Makes sense to me. I can’t help it if you don’t understand my position. Havoc understands it pretty?

Justification? I've seen your opinion stated every which way, but I'll agree it's attempted to be justified when I see more than just your verbosity. let's see substantive source material in agreement with your opinion. You're a software engineer, not a physicist, and not a scientist, nor a cosmologist, nor a medical doctor. I've cited representatives of all those disciplines. You?

You're in my territory, now - writing fiction. Look up the implication of "suspension of disbelief." My particular style of fiction, recognized by some readers, is that in my arena of historic fiction, I weave the history and fiction so closely together, readers are not certain, with detailed study, where the history ends and fiction begins. Funny how I can be so brief, while you write a bible.

His interpretation of the Constitution implies they can be impeached. It’s really simple. 

There’s two options: only current officeholders can  be impeached/tried in the Senate

Or, non-current but previous officeholders can be impeached/tried in the Senate. 

The latter interpretation inherently implies that the Constitution says dead Presidents can be impeached and convicted. 

Non-current, previous officeholders is a set that includes dead people. And since impeachment is a political process, all it does is tarnishes reputation for the individual convicted. There’s your “punishment.”

But our resident self-identified software engineer [Ramshutu, #146] distinguishes software and hardware, and I would distinguish brain structure [tissue & chemistry] from mind and thought, considering software as the mind/thought, and hardware as the brain tissue and chemistry.

While I will acknowledge that conditions of brain structure and chemistry have their effect on thought and decision-making, I do not agree that hey are the only influences on those processes, no do I accept that the result of thought and decisions are determinist in nature.

And, Hamlet expresses that very idea in Act III,i by saying, as I previously cited, "That patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin?" Any unfamiliar words no longer in the current common lexicon, [thgere are two just in that short offering] but certainly in use in the early 17th century when Hamlet was written, should clarify if consulted. Hamlet is not depending on stars, or universal particles, or anything else you guys push forward for explanation of his thinking process. It is him doing the thinking by his own wits.

You’re clearly not understanding my position on the issue lol. I literally agree with you position, but DR’s interpretation of the Constitution directly supports this ridiculous belief.

If you’re saying that I believe dead people can be impeached, I don’t. But DR’s implications with his Constitutional interpretation leave the option on the table.

I don’t think Washington nor Clinton can be impeached right now.

Actually, the debate answers your question and that’s how the Fathers designed it.

If you aren’t an officeholder at the time of a Senate trial, the trial itself is unconstitutional. Consequently,  a non-officeholder cannot be impeached.

You should check out my debate with DR on the subject lol

I participate in forums where even more of my fundamental beliefs are challenged, fun. I think the reason why it can get a bit "eh" here is because it's quite toxic