Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
But, you have an error in the statement:
Chemistry is the same for all of us.
And I already gave you my source refuting it [from my thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6909-some-here-say-the-universe-messes-with-my-brain-chemistry?page=2 #38]:
So, no, our brain chemistry is not "the same for all of us." Sorry, but I want to see you evidence that it is, and then, we merely have academic disagreement. What a surprise. That never happens.
Please don’t make ridiculous, idiotic straw men. I didn’t say our brain chemistry is identical. I said that chemistry itself is the same for all of us. Which it is.
The problem I’m pointing out is this absurd, and frankly bone/headed insinuation that if the laws of physics are the only thing that operates on our brains, then they would all be identical carbon copies.
I cannot express how stupid your claim here is.
Simple deterministic laws produce different outcomes in large complex systems where the inputs and interactions are slightly different in all scenarios.
Your brain chemistry and mine are very slightly different - not because you have free will - but because identical physical laws operating in different environments, on subtly different genetics, subjected to different chemicals, heats, experience - produce different outcomes.
I mean seriously. What crackpot illogical nonsense do you have to believe to presume that the same physical laws could never produce differences in different environments?
As if you have never changed your mind to act differently, even in identical conditional situations. Free will appears to me to be a much more simple Occam's razor than your contradictions of determinism.
And you skip over the problem again.
I have definitely changed my mind. Did changing my mind make a single electron, or atom disobey physical laws?
If it did not - then my decision is governed not my free will, but those physical laws.
I have definitely changed my mind. Did changing my mind make a single electron, or atom disobey physical laws?
If it did not - then my decision is governed not my free will, but those physical laws.
Your position requires our brains to be able to violate the laws of physics, that is clearly a violation of Occam’s razor compared to assuming that our brain simply operates by physics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Yes, I agree, the operation of these elements is the result of their interaction, but that totally ignores the one factor you fail to mention. Me. You. Everyone. The entirety of at least the entirety of Homo sapiens. But taht says nothing for what consists of each individual entity, and each of us are unique. So, why does the universe not influence each entity in the same way such that our actions produced are identical to one another? Or do you apply intelligence and persuasion to read each of our variables by each of your Electons, Atoms, Chemicals, Fields?
It does influence us all in exactly the same way. Chemistry is the same for all of us. Gravity is the same for all of us. The outcome is dependent on so many individual factors that differ for everyone - time, environment, etc, that the outcome is different.
I mean seriously: why would you think natural process would make everyone identical when it can’t even make every cloud the same, or every beach. Or the weather.
From whence comes that "logic?" Sorry, hot air to fill your wish balloon. keep blowing.By what natural rule change have I caused violation because today, I wear a green shirt. Yesterday, it was red. Am I signaling my prep for Christmas? Or is it random, but free choice? And how do you EACFs know the difference?
If every electron and every atom in your brain behaves invariably according to natural laws governing its behaviour. Then every that happens in your brain is happening the way it does because of this natural laws; all the outputs happen because of the product of those natural laws.
If the natural laws governing electrochemistry cause the electrons, atoms and signals in your brain to chose a green shirt: the only way of choosing a red shirt would be to violate those rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?
Why is a greater authority required in order to tell us to emote?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
free will is as factually supported as Santa Claus.
You do realize that I went to the trouble of explaining in detail the fundamental issue with your position, and free will.
I only ask. As it appears that you have ignored everything I said.
Just in case it was an honest error on your part, here it is again. I look forward to your reasoned response to which part of what I said is invalid:
No, it was actually all included in my description.
Neurones are physical things, they obey physical and electrochemical rules, and individual neurones act predictably. The brain as a whole is highly simply complex interaction of predictable element. Electrons. Atoms. Chemicals. Fields. All interacting according to rules.
For free will to exist - one electron. One molecule. One electric pulse, must not follow the natural rules of the universe, and must instead be affected by something that doesn’t itself follow any of the natural rules of the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If anything it throws a monkey wrench into the materialist way of thinking.
Why?
This orderly universe with universal laws doesn't appear to have come from chaos which would be the big bang.
Why would you say that? The Big Bang is not a description of what produced natural laws, but a description of the start of the universe - and it’s not really “chaos” in the way you mean it - other than a description of a highly energetic state.
It strongly, not definitively points to an intelligent design.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
You have offered all but the most pertinent activity; the decision process, alone, once the review of all factors considered is complete, and which certainly has physical, measurable attributes, but the measure of those attributes does not include an exact measure of the processes' resulting action, else one would not be able to display a repeated experience-stimulation with a varied pattern of resulting action, which humans demonstrate all the time. And, the fact is, by those measurement techniques, the data collected, alone, does not indicate with any accuracy what decisive action will be rendered. The physical, organic process you outline simple does not include an outline of the decision made; that must wait for observation of the individual's action. We can measure that thinking/decision processes are in play, but not the decision, itself.
No, it was actually all included in my description.
Neurones are physical things, they obey physical and electrochemical rules, and individual neurones act predictably. The brain as a whole is highly simply complex interaction of predictable element. Electrons. Atoms. Chemicals. Fields. All interacting according to rules.
For free will to exist - one electron. One molecule. One electric pulse, must not follow the natural rules of the universe, and must instead be affected by something that doesn’t itself follow any of the natural rules of the universe.
Until you can show that actually happens (which we both know you can’t), free will is as factually supported as Santa Claus.
Created:
Posted in:
The analysis of Stem matches up with my knowledge: as a software engineer, who has made hiring decisions; unless you went to MIT, or Caltech, or a world renound technical place, it’s not going to move the needle at all; and becomes completely irrelevant the moment you apply for a non entry level job.
When Interviewing for intermediate, senior and principle roles, I can’t recall ever bothering to check qualifications ever- it’s been my experience that work experience counts a billion times more above entry level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But why would we do that if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?
There are people around the world that like to dress up in fury costumes and f**k each other. For many of them, it’s an important aspect of their life, and a way, I’m sure, that they can derive personal self worth or satisfaction. It has meaning to them.
Fury orgies occur not because there is some higher power that imparts some objective meaning - no God that sits down and determines that Jimmy dressing up in a chipmunk costume with a pink dress has some greater purpose or meaning. But because Jimmy has emotions, and emotional interactions that end up manifesting in the way he weights or reacts the importance of things that happen around him. And these emotions end up making him feel like dry humping someone dressed as a Chinchilla, has some greater meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
“I'd like to know how an non-living force [the universe] can direct the thoughts and actions of any living organism, let alone a sentient organism.”
- your brain is made up of neurones.
- These neurones are physical thing that operate electrochemically, via reproducible behaviours.
- When light falls on your eyes, the photons excite atoms in your retina. This is governed by electrochemistry.
- This generates an electrical signal that travels along your optic nerve. (Electrochemistry)
- The electrical signal in the optic nerve triggers varying amounts of neurotransmitter chemicals at the synapse, which triggers the next neurone. This is governed by physics governing the interaction of chemicals.
- A cascade of neurones trigger; the nature and intensity of this triggering based upon how strongly bound each neurone is to the next, for which electrochemical rules produce stronger or weaker responses as a result.
- The neuronal cascade eventually triggers motor neurones, which deliver an electrical pulse to muscle cells, which move in particular ways based on the deliver a pulse.
In this description - you have seen something, “thought” about it, “made a decision”, and acted upon that decision; and at no point is there any point where “you” make a decision.
Indeed, making a decision, thought, etc, may simply be how our brains interpret these deterministic processes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Will trade Cali, north east and Minnesota for Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Leave all your guns, trans-fats and paranoia at the border; the American Dream moved here in the 90s already. We already have a segment of our population that is out of touch with reality, and is dedicated to supporting something existentially terrible - they wear leaf hats though.
You can pay us with all the money you save on insulin in the first week
Created:
Posted in:
Who said Gold could be used to gauging inflation? I checked the thread twice - and can’t see anyone saying that at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The dollar is up against the Euro, up against the pound, fractionally down against the huan (after tanking under trump), bit down against the loony (after tanking under trump), very up against the yen, up a little against aus and NZ dollar, up against the won, high against the Ruble, up against Singapore dollar, up against the Brazilian Real. Gold is great indicator of confidence (people move to gold if worried about investment value being eroded) - that went through the roof under trump, and has been up and down a bit since then, but down since January.
I don’t know wtf he’s talking about. The dollar is broadly up since Biden took over. That lowers price of imports. The big one is going to be stuff in from China, The dollar tanked against the Huan last year under Trump and has been relatively stable since Biden took over, so even that’s not going to massively impact inflation despite all the nonsense being spouted.
I mean - weak dollar is not actually that bad, as it significantly boosts exports, and encourages investment; strong dollar makes imports cheaper. One of the big issues with GBP exports in the late 2000s, early 2010s that I had to deal with (but also managed to negotiate a salary conversion in 2014, which ended up giving me a 30% pay rise after the pound dropped lol.)
The dollar is down against Bitcoin; but everything is down against Bitcoin - until it isn’t. The idea that a currency that can tank 30% because of something Elon musk says, or rising 20% because Amazon posts a job opening does not strike me as some sort of safe haven. Ripe for speculation due to its volatility; sure - Perhaps he has latched onto it as a thing to be repeated like the 38%, let’s go Brandon, or Orangeman bad, and doesn’t really understand it very much - or perhaps he simply likes his currency prices the same way he likes his geniuses. Very stable.
One of the normal things normal people who argue do, is assume that the people they’re arguing with are correct in the things they state as factual; but I have long since learned (after conversing with a lot of flat earthers), that if someone who is not known for their veracity dramatically declares the dollar is down; it’s worth googling whether the dollar is actually down. Perhaps the continued return to “let’s go Brandon”, is because when he does anything else, his level of wider understanding becomes readily apparent.
I don’t know wtf he’s talking about. The dollar is broadly up since Biden took over. That lowers price of imports. The big one is going to be stuff in from China, The dollar tanked against the Huan last year under Trump and has been relatively stable since Biden took over, so even that’s not going to massively impact inflation despite all the nonsense being spouted.
I mean - weak dollar is not actually that bad, as it significantly boosts exports, and encourages investment; strong dollar makes imports cheaper. One of the big issues with GBP exports in the late 2000s, early 2010s that I had to deal with (but also managed to negotiate a salary conversion in 2014, which ended up giving me a 30% pay rise after the pound dropped lol.)
The dollar is down against Bitcoin; but everything is down against Bitcoin - until it isn’t. The idea that a currency that can tank 30% because of something Elon musk says, or rising 20% because Amazon posts a job opening does not strike me as some sort of safe haven. Ripe for speculation due to its volatility; sure - Perhaps he has latched onto it as a thing to be repeated like the 38%, let’s go Brandon, or Orangeman bad, and doesn’t really understand it very much - or perhaps he simply likes his currency prices the same way he likes his geniuses. Very stable.
One of the normal things normal people who argue do, is assume that the people they’re arguing with are correct in the things they state as factual; but I have long since learned (after conversing with a lot of flat earthers), that if someone who is not known for their veracity dramatically declares the dollar is down; it’s worth googling whether the dollar is actually down. Perhaps the continued return to “let’s go Brandon”, is because when he does anything else, his level of wider understanding becomes readily apparent.
Most of the inflation is due to supply chain. Things like food, cars etc are almost invariably supply chain - unless Biden causes the droughts earlier in the year... Fuel costs are driven by wider global pressures. The high gdp growth and wage growth does have an impact on both the demand side - and employment costs but it’s not the bulk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
1. Where do you get your information from? What news channels are you watching, what publications are you reading, etc.?
To keep up to date with what’s happening, I look at WaPo, and CBC and bbc news: I have apple alerts from a bunch of news sources across the board. But those are the ones I read. I keep an eye on fox and oann from time to time to make sure I don’t miss the general right wing themes.
If something big happens that interests me or I care about, I will dig into a bunch of different sources to work out what actually happened.
For general analysis, I do read www.electoral-vote.com a fair amount.
2. How do you go about vetting the information you consume?
I keep an eye on what the different sides are saying: and when they conflict I tend to dig deeper; it’s not like what most large viewership sources are saying are inherently wrong - on any side, at most they miss our data that changes the conclusion. Just figure out all key data, and the vetting tends to take care of itself.
What is hilarious is that Facebook and Google algorithms have not managed to figure out my political persuasion yet.
3. How exactly do you identify when you think someone else is not “thinking for themselves”?
People who don’t think for themselves are (obviously) unable to defend against novel arguments; and return to talking points or trolling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Who needs tucker Carlson, when I can ignore everything you just said, and spout some nonsensical tripe over and over again and pretend as if it’s a response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
"Inflation is happening because retail spending is up." "How do you measure retail spending?""By the total number of dollars spent in the retail sector, why do you ask?""Well, couldn't people just be paying more for the retail products they normally buy, and that's what's pushing the total dollars spent up? For all we know, people could be buying fewer goods and just having to pay more for them.""That's not what's happening."
It’s like there are, you know, stats or something that allow us to tell what inflation is each month, and how much spending increased each month….
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
but you believe in the concept of the number 3 as real, as it does exist even though it has no physical properties.you'd agree that 3+3=6 and can't equal anything else
The number 3 is real in the same way the word table is real; they are both an abstract language that describes something. But they are describing different thing - one is a physical object (the table), the other is a quantity - the value a physical property of a collection of things may have.
In that respect; yes, I would consider what 3 represents exists; but 3 itself is an abstract description.
For 3+3=6. Yes. As 3 represents a physically real quantity, and 6 represents a physically real quantity; 3+3 = 6 remains true as almost a tautology; but as the description is arbitrary, 4+4= 6 is possible if we changed definitions - the same way if we all started calling cats dogs, people would have dog flaps and allow their dogs to wander the street.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Saw an interesting video. Is this "3" the number three? No it's not, it's a representation of the number three as is III etc, so what and where is the number 3? Which of our senses can we identify the number three with?
3 is a description of a quantity. The number of eyes and noses you have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
does anyone dispute this?
Light generally travels in a straight line, and one photon (which is one single chunk of energy) will travel in a straight line.
Light can act like a wave and diffract, and is subject to waveform uncertainty, and thus interfere as light with other light - which I think is where your confusion is coming from - but it still travels in a straight line, in a given direction.
There is a hint of correctness in your question whether though: if you beam a single photon at a time at the two slit apparatus (the famous experiment), they will build up the classic interference pattern despite being one photon at a time - meaning a single photon interferes with itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I think they’re coming over for their free Obama phone.
How DARE you reply with a stupid throwaway line response. How DARE you troll in bad faith!! Have you not seen this forum before??
Next thing we know you’ll turn full stupid, dishonest Troll, by making everything you say stupid throwaway lines, offering no argument at all, saying ridiculous things such as “immigration is based on welfare” that you have no ability or will to defend, then blocking people when your safe space is challenged by someone pointing out your evasive non engagement is covering for a systemically vacuous political position.
Shame on you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Recall, my previous post was mainly pointing out the inconsistencies in the argument that MPP reduced immigration
1.) MPP numbers were tiny. It only hit ~10k by June, at which point crossings were already dropping.
Asking “What caused the crash then?” Does not change the fact that MPP was neither large enough nor early enough to account for the drop.
2.) Impacts of MPP on immigrants is still going to be better than much of Latin America living conditions: so still worth the risk and unlikely to be deterrent.
No reply
3.) Even your link shows that immigration historically peaks July or prior - then falls. Claiming the fall in June is because of policy is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
“but the peak in May of 2019 was not at all normal (nor was the fall).”
Compared to the preceding few years - it was not normal in volume. Compared to the previous 20 years - the timing of the rise and fall were seasonally consistent. Timing is the main argument you’re making, and I’m pointing out that the timing of the fall is consistent with other years. It erodes your timing argument is due to mpp.
4.) if the 64% of crossers that came in families were not deterred by family separation, it makes no sense that they happened to be deterred by MPP
“But a selection of immigrants interviewed by a right wing website, said they didn’t want to cross the border under Trump”.
None of mentioned MPP as a reason, your example mentioned family separation - which wasn’t actually occurring under Trump either, and cited an decrease in wait times that doesn’t appear to be matched to any real wait time decrease.
There are proposed rule changes that would both free up the courts AND expand expedited removal - which haven’t actually been implemented yet; and given what you’ve said about MPP, should reduce people entering by causing swift removal - rather than catch and release.
But I’m not talking about an anecdote; I’m talking about the lack of appreciable drop (or subsequent rise) in families crossing the border during and after family separation (which ended mid 2018).
5.) MPP Didn’t apply to unaccompanied minors - but they fell in line with other groups that were in 2019.
You missed this one too.
6.) Mexican nationals are way up too in 2021 - MPP doesn’t apply to them.
“This proves my point!”
Well not really. If the spike is due to removal of MPP specifically - to which you attribute the massive dip in 2020 - then removing it or attempting to remove it shouldn’t have impacted immigration from Mexico - but immigration from Mexico is also way up indicating there is a change in pressure - not the policy.
Well not really. If the spike is due to removal of MPP specifically - to which you attribute the massive dip in 2020 - then removing it or attempting to remove it shouldn’t have impacted immigration from Mexico - but immigration from Mexico is also way up indicating there is a change in pressure - not the policy.
7.) October 2020 border crossings were 72k. That’s the highest October numbers since at least 2013: higher than 2019. It was already showing that immigration was picking up from august 2020, even with Trump and these policies all in place.
“But they were tapering off!”
October and November numbers were huge despite no change in immigration policy. Immigration was not spiking (as in other winters), but high above averages - Indicating that immigration pressure was already far higher at the end of 2020 despite no change in MPP policy. The point being that Immigration was way up on normal levels prior to any policy changes.
“But it’s not seasonal any more.”
Seasonal peaks are the historic norm: with
October and November numbers were huge despite no change in immigration policy. Immigration was not spiking (as in other winters), but high above averages - Indicating that immigration pressure was already far higher at the end of 2020 despite no change in MPP policy. The point being that Immigration was way up on normal levels prior to any policy changes.
“But it’s not seasonal any more.”
Seasonal peaks are the historic norm: with
8.) Catch and release was “shut down” in 2018. Remain in Mexico was prominent in early 2019. Trump was notoriously hostile to illegal immigration since his election. Despite this overt hostility, there was still a massive peak of illegal immigration in 2019…. It seems to indicate that the impact of policy changes and announcements are minimal.
You missed this one too
9.) MPP announcement was followed by a peak of families crossing the border. If it’s valid to attribute the subsequent fall to MPP, it’s just as valid to attribute the rise to MPP too - for example: it meant families no longer had to worry about being deported back to their home countries and had the opposite effect.
“Why the dip?”
You missed the point here; the point is that you’re simply pointing to MPP as a cause of the fall; despite it being too small and too late. I’m pointing out that you could also argue that this policy was responsible for the peak in family crossings in 2019; it makes just as much sense.
This is the big point: that there is no reason that the policy you said was controlling immigration was actually controlling immigration. If it applied to all or a majority 300,000 asylum claims made in 2019, perhaps - but it wasn’t close.
So let’s look at what actually happened; 2017 was a very low year. 2018 was a bit higher, there was a large peak in 2019. This wasn’t down to policy, but in part underlying pressure and likely part because people not crossing in the previous years due to uncertainty about trump for the previous two years crossed.
After the summer, the numbers fell again; to numbers similar to 2015/2016 at the end of 2019 and start of 2020 - before dropping off to almost nothing in April 2020 - is there something you can imagine happened in March/April 2020 that could have deterred people from crossing, perhaps some major worldwide health crisis? The stats show that crossings tanked in March/April.
Once the initial uncertainty of that had passed after the summer; and the economy picked up - numbers ticked up to the highest winter numbers for nearly two decades; Biden took over and the numbers went up even more.
There are several reasons for the amount and timing. Firstly, Latin America are going through their worst bout of unemployment in decades, whilst there are huge numbers of job openings in the US. 2020 was an outlier due to the pandemic, which has the double blow of causing economic problems in Latin America, and delaying people to this year. Add to this hurricane Eta and Iota in mid November; pile onto a decade of drought and the high level if food insecurity: it’s hugely unsurprising that migration pressure would up from 2019.
Title 42 has a small part to play: while it allows rapid expulsion at the border - it reduces the burden of being caught. No prison, little risk, just cross the border and worst case you get out back where you were. The percentage of
Perception, for sure, has a Massive part to play. It doesn’t matter whether Biden is the same, or even harsher for immigrants than Trump - if people perceive him to be more open, more people will come. This is why the right wing media painting the southern Border as completely open, that people are now suddenly just being let in, and allowed to run away into the US - when what’s happening is not much different than than under Trump (which he is being beaten up about in the left FYI) - has a far larger impact on that perception than any material impact from changes in policy.
The issue right now, is one of raw capacity. Title 42 is still in place (and is unchanged from Trump), but the spectrum of individuals that are coming has changed meaning fewer are expelled (a trend that began in summer 2020). With limited holding capacity - there are limited options with what to do - hence why multitudes have to be bonded out (which happened under Trump too), MPP didn’t have any substantial capacity to deal with any of this; and ultimately this is exacerbating the issues; but it’s not the underlying cause of the problems.
Altogether it’s not going be solved by relatively tiny programs like remain and Mexico for all the reasons I’ve stated already - it’s going to require the countries that are generating the refugees to be stable.
You missed the point here; the point is that you’re simply pointing to MPP as a cause of the fall; despite it being too small and too late. I’m pointing out that you could also argue that this policy was responsible for the peak in family crossings in 2019; it makes just as much sense.
This is the big point: that there is no reason that the policy you said was controlling immigration was actually controlling immigration. If it applied to all or a majority 300,000 asylum claims made in 2019, perhaps - but it wasn’t close.
So let’s look at what actually happened; 2017 was a very low year. 2018 was a bit higher, there was a large peak in 2019. This wasn’t down to policy, but in part underlying pressure and likely part because people not crossing in the previous years due to uncertainty about trump for the previous two years crossed.
After the summer, the numbers fell again; to numbers similar to 2015/2016 at the end of 2019 and start of 2020 - before dropping off to almost nothing in April 2020 - is there something you can imagine happened in March/April 2020 that could have deterred people from crossing, perhaps some major worldwide health crisis? The stats show that crossings tanked in March/April.
Once the initial uncertainty of that had passed after the summer; and the economy picked up - numbers ticked up to the highest winter numbers for nearly two decades; Biden took over and the numbers went up even more.
There are several reasons for the amount and timing. Firstly, Latin America are going through their worst bout of unemployment in decades, whilst there are huge numbers of job openings in the US. 2020 was an outlier due to the pandemic, which has the double blow of causing economic problems in Latin America, and delaying people to this year. Add to this hurricane Eta and Iota in mid November; pile onto a decade of drought and the high level if food insecurity: it’s hugely unsurprising that migration pressure would up from 2019.
Title 42 has a small part to play: while it allows rapid expulsion at the border - it reduces the burden of being caught. No prison, little risk, just cross the border and worst case you get out back where you were. The percentage of
Perception, for sure, has a Massive part to play. It doesn’t matter whether Biden is the same, or even harsher for immigrants than Trump - if people perceive him to be more open, more people will come. This is why the right wing media painting the southern Border as completely open, that people are now suddenly just being let in, and allowed to run away into the US - when what’s happening is not much different than than under Trump (which he is being beaten up about in the left FYI) - has a far larger impact on that perception than any material impact from changes in policy.
The issue right now, is one of raw capacity. Title 42 is still in place (and is unchanged from Trump), but the spectrum of individuals that are coming has changed meaning fewer are expelled (a trend that began in summer 2020). With limited holding capacity - there are limited options with what to do - hence why multitudes have to be bonded out (which happened under Trump too), MPP didn’t have any substantial capacity to deal with any of this; and ultimately this is exacerbating the issues; but it’s not the underlying cause of the problems.
Altogether it’s not going be solved by relatively tiny programs like remain and Mexico for all the reasons I’ve stated already - it’s going to require the countries that are generating the refugees to be stable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
In the eye's of the law, intention matter very little. The fact of the matter is that scientifically a fetus is a human being and tautologically, abortion ends with the termination of a fetus.
Ignoring the fact that intention is critical in almost every aspect of law - we weren’t talking about the law, we were talking about comparing abortion with kidnapping; and in this case intention is what makes both things critically different from each other.
I'll draw a comparison between kidnapping and abortion.I come home with a kid in my back trunk.I come home after a night of unprotected sexThe kid is placed in my basement.The fetus is created in my stomach (yes I know this isn't how it technically works)The kid becomes a burden.The fetus becomes a burden.I kill him.I abort him.
I already, covered this in the specific part you quoted. Firstly, it’s not the same as in one example you’re intentionally and deliberately putting some in the position of danger. The second is that in the kidnapping case you have the option of “letting them go” - which you do not in the case of pregnancy; as this requires carrying to term and giving birth, which are all huge potential health impacts to the mother.
So yeah, other than these two examples being fundamentally different - you can argue they are superficially similar.
I even went so far as to give you a more specific and exact example - which you appear to have ignored in your response.
The point isn't whether there are other options
That there are no alternatives in one case that don’t put the mother at significant risk, or forces her go through pregnancy is a critical and central point.
I'm trying to draw a comparison. When it comes to abortion, there are only two options.Keep the baby.Kill the baby.As you opt for option two to be legal, I then draw the comparison to a 1 day old baby. If a mother does not want her baby, is it reasonable that she be given the options toKeep the baby.Kill the baby.You can say "there are other options", but that's not the point. There's no other option in abortion. These two are the only ones available.
That there are now less risky options to the mother in 1 day old child case whilst there is not when the child has not yet been born - is specifically and exactly what makes killing a born child not okay.
Are you in favour of abortion at the 9th month.
That actually depends; to save mother’s life - yup. If the child is not going to live, or is going to be so profoundly disabled as to have minimal quality of life yep - I thinks that’s for the mother and doctor to decide.
At or near term, the risks and harm of having the child vs an abortion at this stage are nearly the same - so there’s clearly not as much compelling factor for the mother privacy and body autonomy: as credible alternatives exist to abortion that have similar risks to childbirth and the pregnancy but does not necessarily lead to the death of the child in these cases, abortion is no longer medically necessary to reduce harm.
That being said - and this is a separate issue - whether a given case matches that criteria, and means that abortion should not be provided due to other possibilities - is not something that your, I, or the government should be deciding in a blanket law. That should be something medical professionals should be working out with mothers to determine what’s in the true medical best interests of everyone.
Given that the overwhelming majority of abortions occur prior to the 3rd trimester, with 39% being chemical prior to 13/14 weeks - and given that the likelihood of a woman making it to 9 months of pregnancy without other issues and then suddenly deciding to have an abortion is close to 0; it’s not an issue that we really have to contend with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Like I said to Zed, this is akin to me kidnapping a child into my basement, complaining about him crying and then asserting that I have the right to kill him as he is invading my property and trespassing.
No it’s not. Not even in the slightest, in any way shape or form, on the grounds that a) pregnancy in these scenarios is almost invariably unplanned or unintentional - analogies of consent, or other actions that are deliberate imply that individuals having sex know or intend to become pregnant - fail in this respect. So no, having sex and unintentionally becoming pregnant is not akin to kidnapping. B.) kidnapping can be remedied without risk by giving the child back - the least risk method of ending a pregnancy is abortion.
A better analogy, would be if you were drunk and agreed to give someone a piece if your liver. You change your mind when you fully come to terms with the long term impacts of missing a piece of your liver, and withdraw your consent; even though the recipient will now die as a result because its too late to arrange another transplant.
If I killed my one month old baby, stood up in court and asserted that "I realised the baby would dramatically change my life and I didn't want that", how do you think that would stand.
But unlike pregnancy - when a child is born, you have options that don’t put you at risk.
It's also the one which guarantee's the death of a fetus.This is exactly my point, the mother can still withdraw consent but she cannot kill the baby. She can give it up for adoption but she is not allowed to terminate the baby on the basis that it is an inconveniences to her.
She’s allowed to terminate the baby, on the grounds that it’s her body that the baby is in, and if she doesn’t want to go through all the medical risk of pregnancy, she has the absolute right to withdraw her consent - even if the only way to achieve that is the death of the fetus - due to her body autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
But you did not put the person in need of a kidney transplant in the position they are in.
So?
In the case of abortion, the mother, in 99 percent of cases (real statistic) consented to having sex and only withdrew their consent on the basis that having a baby would "dramatically change their lives".
And?
Taking into account that a fetus is scientifically a human being, abortion is akin to allowing a mother kill their baby on the operating table on the basis that the baby would "dramatically change their lives".
No it’s not. Abortion is the simplest and least medically risky procedure to a woman who doesn’t want to go through the consequences of pregnancy.
When the child has been born - and is in an operating table; a mother can still withdraw consent, and withdraw from that consequence with no risk to herself in a way that doesn’t harm the child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Consent was given when you had sex.
You do realize that consent can be withdrawn, right?
I mean - if you’re having sex, and demand that the other person stop, if they don’t - that’s rape.
If you consent to donate a kidney, and you change your mind; if doctors forces you to donate the kidney anyway, they could be charged with assault.
But hell: if this I the standard, we should not treat smokers for lung cancer - they consented to it by smoking. we should not treat anyone who is in a car accident - as they consented to the risk of injury by getting into the car. No HIV therapy, or antibiotics for the clap - people made their bed.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
One of the most suspicious aspects of the alleged peepee tape, was when Trumps bodyguard suggested they were totally offered prostitutes in the hotel; but Trump turned them down.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
He had a preference for one over the other. This CAUSED him to "choose". It was not an "unfettered" choice whatever that is. It was a determination of which he preferred. A determination requires no actual choice.If he had preference then he was subject to cause and effect (determinism)Definitions are in the end arbitrary though useless unless agreed upon a priori. This is why defining terms is an important part of any debate.
This is extremely well stated. Kudos
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Yeah, you just said so, with no data to present refuting that brain chemistry is individually unique, other than declaring it reductio ad absurdum. I can toss out accusations, too, but they have zero value. Come back with some academia behind you. Good luck. "In the private sector, they expect results." Best line in a movie, ever, and so very true.
Why do I need to refute that brain chemistry is individually unique? On what possible basis so you think determinism, and the laws of physics operating over all different individuals with the different genetics and didn’t states wouldn’t create unique brain chemistry?
You’re just making up wild semi-related claims and then asserting that determinism can’t explain them - making no attempt to link the claim with some aspect of determinism.
Also, bear in mind you seem to be ignoring the main argument:
We always chose what is the most preferable option to us at the time. Not what is someone analyzing the situation on the internet later: not what leads us to least harm, or even what the rational part of our brain considers preferable. We have conscious motivations, unconscious motivations, emotional motivations that all weigh in.In some scenarios all those come together so that the the choice that is most preferable at that moment, perhaps jacked up on adrenakine; having to make a snap decision so considering things quickly - is to sacrifice yourself.We can only chose that preferable option; because chose is an illusion: as SM said extremely well, and I will steal - we don’t chose, we make a determination.
Computers can do that.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
I answered your post straight after. It wasn’t ignored; I just pointed out how your premise was mostly asserted nonsense - which it is.
As is par for the course: you completely fail to understand the nuance of the argument presented.
We always chose what is the most preferable option to us at the time. Not what is someone analyzing the situation on the internet later: not what leads us to least harm, or even what the rational part of our brain considers preferable. We have conscious motivations, unconscious motivations, emotional motivations that all weigh in.
In some scenarios all those come together so that the the choice that is most preferable at that moment, perhaps jacked up on adrenakine; having to make a snap decision so considering things quickly - is to sacrifice yourself.
We can only chose that preferable option; because chose is an illusion: as SM said extremely well, and I will steal - we don’t chose, we make a determination.
Computers can do that.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
And you have completely ignored my #38 argument, substantiated by citation
My reply is right there; but please don’t demand me to respond to your posts when you have systematically ignored everything I have said.
You are still ignoring everything I said in my last post; having simply dismissed it.
How can free will exist if you can never chose a least preferable option? You’re just weighing up all the different factors at the time, and making a decision. Computers can do that - as I pointed out a few posts ago and you ignored.
Choice is an illusion.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
If it’s not possible for you to chose something that isn’t a preferable option - is it still a choice?
You’re not choosing - you are calculating - which doesn’t require free will.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So let’s start off with a simple question - why do you think that Stalin and Saddam out up statues of themselves?
To teach history?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Determinism insists that we do not have free will, that our decision process when assessing options is driven by the universe and its affects via universal standard elements, explained by quantum physics: particles, waves, fields, and forces, acting on on our brain chemistry.according to this source, "…like with fingerprints, no two people have the same brain anatomy, a study has shown. This uniqueness is the result of a combination of genetic factors and individual life experiences."determinism must insist, therefore, that an unconscious, even non-living universe is capable of a remarkable function: the universal standard elements [particles, waves, fields, and forces] have the capacity to:
- Distinguish the brain chemistry of every individual
- Act upon that assessment to influence unique brain chemistry to cause a thought or action.
- Convince us that it, the universe, controls our choices and not our personal free will.
Why on earth would you think that? That’s just a stupid reductio ad absurdum.
How about “deterministic laws of physics can produce life; from which intelligence evolves, from which complex self aware organisms evolve, but whose brains still follow determinist rules that make choices”. That doesn’t seem unreasonable, right?
Determinism might explain how we individually make choices, but the notion of a universal cause depends upon each individual having the same brain chemistry. But this is faulty reasoning since our personal brain chemistry is unique for each individual. We truly are not the same.
Why on earth would you think deterministic laws of physics involved when a human brain develops. in subtly different conditions with different initial states would produce identical brains?
That’s a ridiculous straw man.
However, note that not only is our brain chemistry individually unique, so, too, are our experiences. Clearly even people who experience something simultaneously in a group take something different from that which is ubiquitously experienced. Our own brain function makes our perceived experience somewhat unique; rarely are experiences shared completely by each individual. This is one reason why in testimony in a court of law, each testimony by several witnesses to an event testify of separate nuances. Some may sound as if witnesses viewed and experienced different events.
You mean we learn, and we have memories. Through physical interactions that are mediated by deterministic physics?
The standard universal elements do not have the capacity to suggest such variation, because that insists that these elements can manipulate variable thoughts in several individuals, patterned to match those individuals.
What does that even mean? Are you just pulling this out of your ass?
Physics and deterministic interaction in your brain cells, a neurone fires, it’s neighbours fires another, all via deterministic laws of physics - that’s thought. Fees back along a pathway, follows deterministic electrochemical rules to reinforce the connections in the pathway to learn.
That is too much to ask of elements which express no capacity related to intelligent thought and action, even if, on their own, by scientific observation, these elements’ actions are in any way predictable. Otherwise, one must suspect that we all act and react in identical fashion.
Why is it too much to ask? This is just one big argument from incredulity.
This is clearly not the case.
Argument by assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I recall a conversation with a Trump supporting friend. I walked him through what was going to happen during the election.
I showed him various laws in the Midwest, Florida, etc about when votes could be counted and how; I talked briefly about Arizona and Georgia. We both concluded that places like Florida will start blue and turn red, and places in the Midwest will start red and turn blue. We both agreed that the votes would take days to count. And I got him to acknowledge that if the democrats won in Pennsylvania, it would probably take a couple of days to find out. And I even got him to acknowledge that if the election was not called and was waiting for those states, Trump shouldn’t declare victory if he was leading.
I told him that Trump would probably claim victory on election night, then as the vote was counted, those places would turn blue - and he would claim fraud. He agreed that it would be completely unreasonable should he do so. He objected on the basis that Trump would concede if he lost
So when it happened exactly the way I had outlined, and exactly the way he agrees - he of course started reeling off unhinged Facebook screeds about how the result in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin clearly looked fraudulent - for exactly the same reasons he had acknowledged were perfectly reasonable a week before; and doubled down when I asked him to comment on his previous statements.
This is all to say that I think “believe” is not a word that appropriately conveys the concept people hold.
The statistics on how many people believe Trump really won the election is a measure of what proportion of the population have been completely disengaged with logic, reason, and reality - and are largely being driven along by right wing group think.
The remaining questions are:
- How much control do individuals like Trump have over the direction they take (probably a lot): the right wing has whipped up animosity and conspiracy thinking for decades; but they kinda lost control of it until Trump took control of it.
- How many can be whipped into violence; or supporting it. It seems the former is minimal, but the latter is substantial - BLM riot crackdowns was what worried me the most prior to the election - because it meant that if Trump tried to seize power, and violently suppressed pro democracy protests - he could just call it anti-fa and BLM, and the base would ignore it.
- How many non violent anti-democratic actions would this group support? There weren’t that many people standing in between a Trump Presidency this election; if that changes, there are going to be a lot of people who will not care if he takes charge anti-democratically (whilst obviously shouting about freedom the whole time)
Created:
-->
@949havoc
I’m insisting that non-causality is not a thing because it’s not a thing. you’re pretending as if it’s something in the universe, some facet of reality - but when pressed you give a nonsensical answer that is completely incoherent with anything you’ve said before.
Seriously, this “non causality” is something you’ve consistently pointed to as a reason determinism fails - yet you have not been able to offer a description that makes any sense at all.
This is why responses to you are so hard; literally everything you’re saying is meaningless incoherent waffle that doesn’t seem to be making a substantial point as much as just trying to assert how right you are.
Finally: I am completely unsurprised that you’re ignoring the proof you’re wrong; I base this on the observation that this is what you’ve been doing throughout. Fortunately, I have the ability to simply re-quote my former posts (which you ignore) for most of what I’m sure you’ll say next.
I will reiterate again, your central mistake you keep making:
Whenever you chose between two things; you will always and invariably chose the “most preferable option” of the two.
If any option you're faced with has an option you will always chose, and one you will never chose; the idea of choice itself is an illusion.
Choices are not choices; and do not involve free will, but involves weighting various relevant feelings and parameters of the decision.
Created:
Posted in:
If you add one Schrodinger cat in a box with another, then does 1+1 = some undetermined value between 0 and 2?
If you have two cats in the same box (IE: both alive or both dead), then the number of live cats in the box is both 0 and 2 at the same time.
If you have two independently controlled boxes, then the number of live cats in the box are both 0, 1 and 2 at the same time.
Superposition means both states are true at the same time
Created:
-->
@949havoc
The best example for non-causality I can think of in this instance is the non-causality that the universe was geocentric, which science determined thousands of years ago, and maintained until the 1860s. There simply was no cause for such "science," yet science declared it so, merely by observation
What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that non causality is science that people believe without cause?
Let’s ignore the flat out lie that it has no cause for it: people wanted to believe the earth was important, it matches observations of many heavens. Let’s also ignore that it was maintained until the 1860s; heliocentric basically took over in the 1600s after observations of moons of Jupiter and Saturn made geocentrism impossible.
What you just explains is completely different from anything you’ve described earlier. I mean come on.
As noted previously, and above, [science that people believe without cause] is the factor determinism. does not consider, yet exists.
I am merely saying what science calls "[science that people believe without cause]" is the random factor in the universe, available to some species having higher intelligence
Bottom line, determinism cannot answer why there is both causality, and [science that people believe without cause] in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options.
Your explanations makes absolutely no sense in any context where you use this nonsense term “non causality”
Non causality is not a thing.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Of course it's unclear. To you. And Secular, who cannot think outside the box of determinism. At least Secular admits a presence of non-causality which you completely ignore.
1 - non-causality is not a thing. Please stop pretending it’s a thing.
2 - Your objection was unclear because you didn’t make an argument, you didn’t state what was wrong, or how, nor did you clearly specify the issue that rendered my example consistent with free will;
Recall we were talking about changes in brain chemistry impacting decision making - your objection was that in the examples the brain wasn’t normal. That’s not actually an objection for the reasons I listed (and that you appear to have ignored)
I started replying to the rest of your post, which to be honest, was an incoherent, irrational, poorly reasoned screed that offered little logic, and simply asserted a bunch of stuff as true; with the bulk of it already rebutted at length in my last post which you mostly ignored. I’m going to summarize your argument, because the amount of nonsense in there makes a response to each part clearly is going to make everyone’s eyes bleed.
Observers:
An observation in quantum theory is the interaction between the thing you’re “observing” and a photon - that’s how observation work. You argue as if it’s some special thing that alters the world - in reality it’s just pointing out that finding information about something at a quantum level, requires it to interact with something else, which can change the something. It doesn’t involve consciousness or a mind.
You’re building this up into this weird psuedoscientific nonsense. That’s all it is; and why it makes no scientific sense
Predictability:
Particles, fields, interactions between them behave repeatably and predictably. There are stochastic elements - individual radioactive decay is random - but adds up non randomly (half life) - radiation is still predictable. Chemistry works predictably, neurones work predictably, at a very basic level, if we know the initial state, we can predict the outcome of almost everything; and the limited scenarios where we can’t is not because things do not behave predictably or repeatedly but that we don’t have a broader model to describe it.
That’s undeniable: QT, gravity, standard model, chemistry and electromagnetism allow us to predict the world to high degrees of accuracy because the world works predictably.
Newton cannot fully describe mercuries orbit - GR cannot be incorporated into electron calculations - but mercuries orbit and electrons are still predictable. In large part you appear to conflate lack of model to explain something with something being non-deterministic (which is just a big fat lie).
You’re argument then hinges on assertions that the world does not really work repeatably (which is a big fat lie), and does act in a way that appears controlled by our laws of physics (also a big fat lie). You should really tell someone about this - because this will come as a big shock to literally anyone who has science training exceeding that taught in 10th grade.
The only example you gave of the world not behaving predictively were observations such as “Jesus walking on water”.
Now, if you don’t understand why pulling a story from the Bible, pretending it is absolutely true, and then asserting the example as if it’s some reproducible scientific observation is just a mind wrenchingly idiotic argument to make, then you’re going to have a very tough time ahead.
The Mind.
You claim, for some reason, that no measurement of the mind show it’s physical. What a big fat Pinocchio whopper lie. I mean what the actual fuck, seriously.
Every single last experiment ever made on the mind, in any way shape or form show it’s a physical thing. I demonstrated that your mind is impacted by the physical parts of your brain, by chemistry, by breaking the neurones, by the physical. Every possible experiment is consistent with the mind being physical.
Choice
So you keep doing this over and over again - completely failing to understand the nature of choice in determinism. I’ve corrected you so many times on this, that continuing to make this error just either be due to dishonesty or stupidity.
I even corrected you again in my last post - in detail with the entirety of the second portion - where I explain in detail the exact nature of choice in a deterministic framework.
However you have ignored that and continue to pretend that if there was a lack of free will - you wouldn’t make choices. This is not just the most horrific straw-man I’ve seen in a while - it’s so bad it qualifies as Big. Fat. lie.
Let me reiterate for the 48271th time under the naive and overly optimistic hope you stop making this grotesque straw man. Though I have my doubts, because in the dozen or so posts where I have corrected you; you have completely failed to acknowledge the correction.
So here goes:
What did you have for breakfast. What were your choices?
Mine was toast with butter, I could have had jam and peanut butter, or maybe cereal - eggs. I was feeling a little lazy and in a bit of a rush.
If free will is true - I chose toast with butter because I have some form of non physical agency.
If determinism is true - I chose toast with butter because my brain is essentially like a deterministic computer program which given the inputs at the time - could only yield that result.
In a deterministic framework we act identically to how we act here and now: exactly the same. The difference is the reasons behind the actions.
Or let me continue with that the hopeless optimism and hope you’re still listening, and give you another example.
Imagine I gave you a choice between toast for breakfast, and a pile of shit sprinkled with radioactive Iodine 141.
You chose the toast. Is that because of free will? Or because you would never chose the Iodine poop.
Feels like a choice, but it’s not really a choice.
How about just poop. Would that be a choice?
What if I keep giving you an option you like better than the others. When does it start being a choice?
Pancakes or waffles?
Perfect - choosing between pancakes and waffles is a matter of free will. Right? It’s a free choice.
You like them both, they’re equally unhealthy; you look at them both and think “you know, I feel more like pancakes today” and chose the pancakes. Everything else about them is exactly the same.
Seems like free will, right?
No. It wasn’t a choice. It never is. Choice is an illusion.
When confronted with possibilities - your brain weighs up the variables, and which of the two options is preferable at that time - and you always, always, always chose that one. “Preferable” encompasses a great many complex factors and things, it’s not always logical; fear, self loathing may figure in (ie: you do something that harms yourself in some way because of self loathing preference for things that harm yourself). Preferable may not factor in all possible aspects, and could differ from hour to hour:
But you will never chose the thing that is less preferable. It doesn’t matter whether it’s toast and poop, or pancakes and waffles. Any two options that you’re faced with has one that you would consider more preferable and that will be the one you choose. The emotional weighing of variables, is what determines your decisions.
You may have difficulty making a decision if two things are close in preference or have hugely competing interests; but you end up making a decision by resolving which is most preferable out of competing interests.
Free will doesn’t factor into it. Anywhere - because you will never, ever, ever chose the lesser preferable option. If a choice is between two things - and it’s impossible to chose one of the - it’s not really a choice at all.
You speak to "physical objects, atoms, neurons, etc." If you mean by that, the quantum particles, waves, fields, and forces, on which laws such as gravity appear to have no control,right there is your problem with determinism, because that theory suggests that determinism isn't the all-encompassing driver of the universe, or of man. Free will exists as that variance you cannot identify0, yet will fight to the teeth that it does not exist. That's on you.
If I’m understanding this right; you’re saying that our physical laws have no control over physical objects and because of that, the universe isn’t deterministic, and thus determinism can’t work, and free will accounts for the difference.
That would be a good argument other than it’s made up nonsense.
Atoms, particles, waves, fields act predictably, and reproducibly.
You object to my description of observation, the essential tool of science, and that observation can, itself, alter that which is observed, or present different interpretations of what is observed.
I object you your description of observation because it’s nonsense. You’re misusing a term of quantum theory: not realizing that an “observer” in a scientific sense means an interaction between a photon and thing thing in wuestijn
“That is fact whether you agree with it, or not. It is the fac tor that can, without taking urgent care to control how things are observed. The fact that the level of accuracy of observation changes, scientist to scientist, or anybody else for that matter, ought to tell you that if determinism were at play, we'd all act better than we do since the control, by determinism's necessity, would be consistent.”
What?
“You argue that outside influences - drugs, for example - can alter our response to the world and the universe. Yes, they can, I agree. But that does not alter the fact that it can also inhibit our free will to not have thoughts or actions that would disagree with our decisions made when not so impaired by external influences. You act as if the idea of taking ketamine is not mine to refuse. I choose to keep such substances from my body, and always have. of course, you could force my actions, but not my decisions. Yes, you can overwhelm my free will, but that's you, forcing the action, not me. If you do it at the poi t of a gun, without any physical contact with me, you've merely presented a condition under which I must decide whether to bow to your forced action, or, at the risk of my life, maintain my own will, freely made in spite of consequences.”
“If determinism were truly the force at work here, I should choose to alter my course, let my survival nature kick in, and do as you insist. obviously, people are in situations wherein they dismiss personal survival for the sake of others. Determinism would insist that does not occur, but it does, and the evidence of it is immediately apparent.”
What? Lol no. Have you listened to anything I’ve said?
“You argue that all physical objects bow to physical laws. Fine. Is the mind a physical object? Not by any observation that has produced evidence to that conclusion.”
What in blazes are you talking about. Every single last observation about the mind that has ever been made - including the ones I described indicate the mind is physical.
“Yet, the mind exists for each individual, and even other animals. And, there are observations, whether you accept them, or not, such as Jesus walking on water, he, a physical being, violatng gravity, one of those laws. But is he breaking a law of physics, or merely acting under a greater law where gravity has limitations, such as it has with particles, waves, fields, and forces.”
“You argue that particles, waves, fields, and forces act predictably, yet, we encounter conditions such as described above, and earlier, where these elements of universe do not obey the law of gravity, and likely other laws, as well. Your determinism does not explain these variables.”
What in the name of Henry Coopers sweaty ballsack is Non-causality?
As noted previously, and above, non-causality is the factor determinism. does not consider, yet exists.
It seems my argument of free will has fewer limitations, and inconsistencies, than determinism.
2 - Your objection was unclear because you didn’t make an argument, you didn’t state what was wrong, or how, nor did you clearly specify the issue that rendered my example consistent with free will;
Recall we were talking about changes in brain chemistry impacting decision making - your objection was that in the examples the brain wasn’t normal. That’s not actually an objection for the reasons I listed (and that you appear to have ignored)
I started replying to the rest of your post, which to be honest, was an incoherent, irrational, poorly reasoned screed that offered little logic, and simply asserted a bunch of stuff as true; with the bulk of it already rebutted at length in my last post which you mostly ignored. I’m going to summarize your argument, because the amount of nonsense in there makes a response to each part clearly is going to make everyone’s eyes bleed.
Observers:
An observation in quantum theory is the interaction between the thing you’re “observing” and a photon - that’s how observation work. You argue as if it’s some special thing that alters the world - in reality it’s just pointing out that finding information about something at a quantum level, requires it to interact with something else, which can change the something. It doesn’t involve consciousness or a mind.
You’re building this up into this weird psuedoscientific nonsense. That’s all it is; and why it makes no scientific sense
Predictability:
Particles, fields, interactions between them behave repeatably and predictably. There are stochastic elements - individual radioactive decay is random - but adds up non randomly (half life) - radiation is still predictable. Chemistry works predictably, neurones work predictably, at a very basic level, if we know the initial state, we can predict the outcome of almost everything; and the limited scenarios where we can’t is not because things do not behave predictably or repeatedly but that we don’t have a broader model to describe it.
That’s undeniable: QT, gravity, standard model, chemistry and electromagnetism allow us to predict the world to high degrees of accuracy because the world works predictably.
Newton cannot fully describe mercuries orbit - GR cannot be incorporated into electron calculations - but mercuries orbit and electrons are still predictable. In large part you appear to conflate lack of model to explain something with something being non-deterministic (which is just a big fat lie).
You’re argument then hinges on assertions that the world does not really work repeatably (which is a big fat lie), and does act in a way that appears controlled by our laws of physics (also a big fat lie). You should really tell someone about this - because this will come as a big shock to literally anyone who has science training exceeding that taught in 10th grade.
The only example you gave of the world not behaving predictively were observations such as “Jesus walking on water”.
Now, if you don’t understand why pulling a story from the Bible, pretending it is absolutely true, and then asserting the example as if it’s some reproducible scientific observation is just a mind wrenchingly idiotic argument to make, then you’re going to have a very tough time ahead.
The Mind.
You claim, for some reason, that no measurement of the mind show it’s physical. What a big fat Pinocchio whopper lie. I mean what the actual fuck, seriously.
Every single last experiment ever made on the mind, in any way shape or form show it’s a physical thing. I demonstrated that your mind is impacted by the physical parts of your brain, by chemistry, by breaking the neurones, by the physical. Every possible experiment is consistent with the mind being physical.
Choice
So you keep doing this over and over again - completely failing to understand the nature of choice in determinism. I’ve corrected you so many times on this, that continuing to make this error just either be due to dishonesty or stupidity.
I even corrected you again in my last post - in detail with the entirety of the second portion - where I explain in detail the exact nature of choice in a deterministic framework.
However you have ignored that and continue to pretend that if there was a lack of free will - you wouldn’t make choices. This is not just the most horrific straw-man I’ve seen in a while - it’s so bad it qualifies as Big. Fat. lie.
Let me reiterate for the 48271th time under the naive and overly optimistic hope you stop making this grotesque straw man. Though I have my doubts, because in the dozen or so posts where I have corrected you; you have completely failed to acknowledge the correction.
So here goes:
What did you have for breakfast. What were your choices?
Mine was toast with butter, I could have had jam and peanut butter, or maybe cereal - eggs. I was feeling a little lazy and in a bit of a rush.
If free will is true - I chose toast with butter because I have some form of non physical agency.
If determinism is true - I chose toast with butter because my brain is essentially like a deterministic computer program which given the inputs at the time - could only yield that result.
In a deterministic framework we act identically to how we act here and now: exactly the same. The difference is the reasons behind the actions.
Or let me continue with that the hopeless optimism and hope you’re still listening, and give you another example.
Imagine I gave you a choice between toast for breakfast, and a pile of shit sprinkled with radioactive Iodine 141.
You chose the toast. Is that because of free will? Or because you would never chose the Iodine poop.
Feels like a choice, but it’s not really a choice.
How about just poop. Would that be a choice?
What if I keep giving you an option you like better than the others. When does it start being a choice?
Pancakes or waffles?
Perfect - choosing between pancakes and waffles is a matter of free will. Right? It’s a free choice.
You like them both, they’re equally unhealthy; you look at them both and think “you know, I feel more like pancakes today” and chose the pancakes. Everything else about them is exactly the same.
Seems like free will, right?
No. It wasn’t a choice. It never is. Choice is an illusion.
When confronted with possibilities - your brain weighs up the variables, and which of the two options is preferable at that time - and you always, always, always chose that one. “Preferable” encompasses a great many complex factors and things, it’s not always logical; fear, self loathing may figure in (ie: you do something that harms yourself in some way because of self loathing preference for things that harm yourself). Preferable may not factor in all possible aspects, and could differ from hour to hour:
But you will never chose the thing that is less preferable. It doesn’t matter whether it’s toast and poop, or pancakes and waffles. Any two options that you’re faced with has one that you would consider more preferable and that will be the one you choose. The emotional weighing of variables, is what determines your decisions.
You may have difficulty making a decision if two things are close in preference or have hugely competing interests; but you end up making a decision by resolving which is most preferable out of competing interests.
Free will doesn’t factor into it. Anywhere - because you will never, ever, ever chose the lesser preferable option. If a choice is between two things - and it’s impossible to chose one of the - it’s not really a choice at all.
You speak to "physical objects, atoms, neurons, etc." If you mean by that, the quantum particles, waves, fields, and forces, on which laws such as gravity appear to have no control,right there is your problem with determinism, because that theory suggests that determinism isn't the all-encompassing driver of the universe, or of man. Free will exists as that variance you cannot identify0, yet will fight to the teeth that it does not exist. That's on you.
If I’m understanding this right; you’re saying that our physical laws have no control over physical objects and because of that, the universe isn’t deterministic, and thus determinism can’t work, and free will accounts for the difference.
That would be a good argument other than it’s made up nonsense.
Atoms, particles, waves, fields act predictably, and reproducibly.
You object to my description of observation, the essential tool of science, and that observation can, itself, alter that which is observed, or present different interpretations of what is observed.
I object you your description of observation because it’s nonsense. You’re misusing a term of quantum theory: not realizing that an “observer” in a scientific sense means an interaction between a photon and thing thing in wuestijn
“That is fact whether you agree with it, or not. It is the fac tor that can, without taking urgent care to control how things are observed. The fact that the level of accuracy of observation changes, scientist to scientist, or anybody else for that matter, ought to tell you that if determinism were at play, we'd all act better than we do since the control, by determinism's necessity, would be consistent.”
What?
“You argue that outside influences - drugs, for example - can alter our response to the world and the universe. Yes, they can, I agree. But that does not alter the fact that it can also inhibit our free will to not have thoughts or actions that would disagree with our decisions made when not so impaired by external influences. You act as if the idea of taking ketamine is not mine to refuse. I choose to keep such substances from my body, and always have. of course, you could force my actions, but not my decisions. Yes, you can overwhelm my free will, but that's you, forcing the action, not me. If you do it at the poi t of a gun, without any physical contact with me, you've merely presented a condition under which I must decide whether to bow to your forced action, or, at the risk of my life, maintain my own will, freely made in spite of consequences.”
“If determinism were truly the force at work here, I should choose to alter my course, let my survival nature kick in, and do as you insist. obviously, people are in situations wherein they dismiss personal survival for the sake of others. Determinism would insist that does not occur, but it does, and the evidence of it is immediately apparent.”
What? Lol no. Have you listened to anything I’ve said?
“You argue that all physical objects bow to physical laws. Fine. Is the mind a physical object? Not by any observation that has produced evidence to that conclusion.”
What in blazes are you talking about. Every single last observation about the mind that has ever been made - including the ones I described indicate the mind is physical.
“Yet, the mind exists for each individual, and even other animals. And, there are observations, whether you accept them, or not, such as Jesus walking on water, he, a physical being, violatng gravity, one of those laws. But is he breaking a law of physics, or merely acting under a greater law where gravity has limitations, such as it has with particles, waves, fields, and forces.”
“You argue that particles, waves, fields, and forces act predictably, yet, we encounter conditions such as described above, and earlier, where these elements of universe do not obey the law of gravity, and likely other laws, as well. Your determinism does not explain these variables.”
What in the name of Henry Coopers sweaty ballsack is Non-causality?
As noted previously, and above, non-causality is the factor determinism. does not consider, yet exists.
It seems my argument of free will has fewer limitations, and inconsistencies, than determinism.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Ramshutu made no argument against the final clause, i.e., "...non-causality in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options." I am merely saying what science calls "non-causality" is the random factor in the universe, available to some species having higher intelligence, like man, and, as I've demonstrated, even a dog, but others, as well, is free will, which can either be predicted, but only based upon consistency past action, or unpredictable, such as making a choice that appears completely at random. Neither of you can give a name to that randomness other than calling it random.ut that descrtiption is not always applicable, and the variation is free will.
“Non-causality” isn’t a thing. In science or anything else.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Sure, all of those external effects can affect brain chemistry and function. I'm even willing to admit that a poor diet, even without the surgery, psychedelics, etc., can affect brain function, but all of that is a deviation from "normal" brain function by an accepted behavior of the "normal" person.
You’re Cheshire Catting again - you’re sounding as if you made an argument - but that’s not an argument for anything. It’s completely unclear what you’re objection even is.
Free will requires there to be some part of your decision making process that can alter physical objects (neurones, atoms, etc) in order to make a decision - without itself being dependent on physical laws: is the part of you that makes the choice a deterministic set of physical things you cannot control - neurones, chemicals, etc - or some non-physical agency which can make decisions and influence your neurones with its behaviour itself not being wholly predictable by the laws of physics?
My examples prove, and you concede, that the part of you that makes decisions - is dependent on physical states of your brain. If chemistry can alter your ability to chose - how can you claim that your ability to chose is not based on the internal electrochemistry without special pleading?
“Normal” is not an objective state; it’s a description of a spectrum of behaviours that occur when your decisions broadly conform to social expectations - it’s not an objective description of how the brain can operate.
When cranked up in ketamine, or sober and well rested, your brain is working based upon the laws of physics - the drugged state alters the chemical behaviour of neurones in a way that leads to different decisions.
A decision based on a ketamine infused bender is just as free as ones you make at work on Wednesday morning - they’re just differently weighted, and made under different chemical conditions.
Free will requires there to be some part of your decision making process that can alter physical objects (neurones, atoms, etc) in order to make a decision - without itself being dependent on physical laws: is the part of you that makes the choice a deterministic set of physical things you cannot control - neurones, chemicals, etc - or some non-physical agency which can make decisions and influence your neurones with its behaviour itself not being wholly predictable by the laws of physics?
My examples prove, and you concede, that the part of you that makes decisions - is dependent on physical states of your brain. If chemistry can alter your ability to chose - how can you claim that your ability to chose is not based on the internal electrochemistry without special pleading?
“Normal” is not an objective state; it’s a description of a spectrum of behaviours that occur when your decisions broadly conform to social expectations - it’s not an objective description of how the brain can operate.
When cranked up in ketamine, or sober and well rested, your brain is working based upon the laws of physics - the drugged state alters the chemical behaviour of neurones in a way that leads to different decisions.
A decision based on a ketamine infused bender is just as free as ones you make at work on Wednesday morning - they’re just differently weighted, and made under different chemical conditions.
“One of the problems with determinism is that the function/behavior of the universe is still as assessed by an observer, and we already know the dangers of that consequence: observation, itself, causes variation, either by affecting the behavior of that observed, or by interpretive variation in what is observed. Either way, it introduces a degree of randomness that messes with the accuracy of predictability. And that is supposed to yield either rational or irrational choices by an individual? No. To me, that randomness of potential variation, even by the properties of the universe that are, but only by degree, predictable; particles, waves, fields, and forces, make the notion of their activity being the source of our human choices a bit too random, given the clarity by which people can reason by themselves and with others.”
This makes no sense on any level that I can discern. I have no clue whatsoever what you’re actually talking about, and nothing you’ve said bears any relation to any aspect of determinism that I have ever heard. I can’t even begin to translate what you intended to mean.
I’ll boil it down simply for you. So you can tell me what part you object to.
Interactions between atoms, particles, forces, etc follow clear and predictable rules; we can statistically predict the outcome of such interactions. If the outcome of all individual particle interactions is governed by predictable physical laws - then the outcome of any composite interaction of physical objects, no matter how complex, is a product solely of initial state and physical laws that govern them too.
Our brains making a decision, is a just a hugely complex interaction of physical objects: so the outcome - the decision - is a product only of initial state and physical laws. There is no gap for our will to assert itself in.
Consider a choice between A and B: we think, we weigh, we consider, and ultimately decide A. This feels like a free choice.
However, our brain obeys the laws of physics. The particles interact predictably, neurones fire in a predictable way: the state of the brain and the laws of physics mean that your decision - whatever it ends up being - is inevitable, you chose A thinking it was a free choice: but it was never physically possible for you to have ever chosen B.
I can put it another way: I write algorithms/AI that control the movements of interacting objects - think controlling traffic lights to optimize traffic flow.
In this program, the central decision maker looks at the state of the system, whether destination paths are blocked, what impact it would have whilst waiting, what the delay would be, what alternative paths are available, how fast the car can travel - 1000 different things, then decides based on all of that to let the car go, or make it wait.
The decisions it makes are controlled by what it’s programming produces - that would not change even if the decision making software became more complex, or even self aware. Nothing I can do will give it free will, no matter how smart, or how conscious it ends up being because it’s decisions are the product of deterministic laws: How CPU instructions work, which is governed by physics.
The same can be said for humans instead of a CPU and instructions, we have an interconnected complex web of neurones that follow deterministic rules. We are an electrochemical analogue program
This is what determinism is and why it is indistinguishable from free will - you can never know whether the choice you don’t make was ever possible or not - because you never make it.
You mention observers: presumably this is a reference to quantum theory; but in QT observed just means “interaction of the thing with a photon”, in reality, there’s no issue with your atoms interacting with other atoms that interact with you.
I’ll boil it down simply for you. So you can tell me what part you object to.
Interactions between atoms, particles, forces, etc follow clear and predictable rules; we can statistically predict the outcome of such interactions. If the outcome of all individual particle interactions is governed by predictable physical laws - then the outcome of any composite interaction of physical objects, no matter how complex, is a product solely of initial state and physical laws that govern them too.
Our brains making a decision, is a just a hugely complex interaction of physical objects: so the outcome - the decision - is a product only of initial state and physical laws. There is no gap for our will to assert itself in.
Consider a choice between A and B: we think, we weigh, we consider, and ultimately decide A. This feels like a free choice.
However, our brain obeys the laws of physics. The particles interact predictably, neurones fire in a predictable way: the state of the brain and the laws of physics mean that your decision - whatever it ends up being - is inevitable, you chose A thinking it was a free choice: but it was never physically possible for you to have ever chosen B.
I can put it another way: I write algorithms/AI that control the movements of interacting objects - think controlling traffic lights to optimize traffic flow.
In this program, the central decision maker looks at the state of the system, whether destination paths are blocked, what impact it would have whilst waiting, what the delay would be, what alternative paths are available, how fast the car can travel - 1000 different things, then decides based on all of that to let the car go, or make it wait.
The decisions it makes are controlled by what it’s programming produces - that would not change even if the decision making software became more complex, or even self aware. Nothing I can do will give it free will, no matter how smart, or how conscious it ends up being because it’s decisions are the product of deterministic laws: How CPU instructions work, which is governed by physics.
The same can be said for humans instead of a CPU and instructions, we have an interconnected complex web of neurones that follow deterministic rules. We are an electrochemical analogue program
This is what determinism is and why it is indistinguishable from free will - you can never know whether the choice you don’t make was ever possible or not - because you never make it.
You mention observers: presumably this is a reference to quantum theory; but in QT observed just means “interaction of the thing with a photon”, in reality, there’s no issue with your atoms interacting with other atoms that interact with you.
Bottom line, determinism cannot answer why there is both causality, and non-causality in the universe, which only adds to the nature of randomness in the universe, i.e., uncaused events cannot be predicted, yet humans still demonstrate capability of choice among options.
What in the name of Henry Coopers sweaty ballsack is Non-causality? lol.
In terms of physics - everything is caused; some aspects of the quantum world occur randomly in the presence of a cause - radioactive decay for example, or the position of an electron - these cannot be predicted specifically, but can be predicted stochastically - half life/orbits. I’m assuming that’s what you mean.
Why on earth do you think determinism needs to answer that? It’s perfectly fine. QT gels with determinism in that it doesn’t matter whether some events involved in the physical process of decision making are stochastic and some are purely deterministic: in one case you are not really making the choice, but the choice you end up making is governed by a stochastic spectrum. In the other you are not really making the choice, and the choice you end up making is the sole possible outcome.
You’re just manufacturing a problem with pseudoscientific gobbledegook that doesn’t really exist, then using the manufactured problem to discount determinism.
In terms of physics - everything is caused; some aspects of the quantum world occur randomly in the presence of a cause - radioactive decay for example, or the position of an electron - these cannot be predicted specifically, but can be predicted stochastically - half life/orbits. I’m assuming that’s what you mean.
Why on earth do you think determinism needs to answer that? It’s perfectly fine. QT gels with determinism in that it doesn’t matter whether some events involved in the physical process of decision making are stochastic and some are purely deterministic: in one case you are not really making the choice, but the choice you end up making is governed by a stochastic spectrum. In the other you are not really making the choice, and the choice you end up making is the sole possible outcome.
You’re just manufacturing a problem with pseudoscientific gobbledegook that doesn’t really exist, then using the manufactured problem to discount determinism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
A number of sock puppet accounts have popped up here that have been problematic and have uses VPN for IP spoofing so as not to be detected. While there could be a VPN black list, it’s more likely just to be that various trolls have been IP banned having been using a VPN - meaning that VPN/proxy is basically useless for everyone.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
I can change the decisions you make.
Frontal lobotomies - used to be a fairly common practice, and completely changes the decisions people make. If removing a physical piece of your brain changes your choices, it seems certain that physical piece of brain is part of what helps make choices right?
Some choices are not really choices. Today, now, you may never consider calling an Ex, or running down the street naked, etc. Things you would never do.
Some choices are not really choices. Today, now, you may never consider calling an Ex, or running down the street naked, etc. Things you would never do.
If I crank you up with LSD, Meth, alcohol, SSRIs, and those decisions can be changed. I can zap part your brain with electromagnets, and it changes the moral decision making centres of your brain. We make bad decisions when tired. High level of cortisol and adrenaline, we make different decisions. Too much serotonine, not enough dopamine, too much testosterone - different chemical balance, different decisions.
You could have a brain injury, or mental illness that we recognize may prevent you from making decisions properly, many corrected with chemicals. I can have a physical addiction which can cause me to make decisions that I wouldn’t otherwise make.
It seems a remarkably uncontroversial to state that our ability to make choices is dependent on the physical and chemical conditions of our brain. No?
You could have a brain injury, or mental illness that we recognize may prevent you from making decisions properly, many corrected with chemicals. I can have a physical addiction which can cause me to make decisions that I wouldn’t otherwise make.
It seems a remarkably uncontroversial to state that our ability to make choices is dependent on the physical and chemical conditions of our brain. No?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
If the Trump supporters on this site were bank fraudsters - you could write all your bank details in that post and not lose a penny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
You’re strategy is something I refer to as “picking peanuts out of poop”, which is a fallacy of relevance. Raising an irrelevant objection and ignoring the broader point so one can be seen to be objecting.
My core point is that the way physical things interact are either definitively deterministic, or statistical in nature. There is no mechanism by which some physical outcome can be changed solely by thought; especially given that thought appears to be physical in nature itself, and thus dependent on the same deterministic or statistical interactions of other things.
Of course, you’ve largely ignored the central point to fixate on Occams Razor - peanut #1. Bear in mind you also engage in what I call “the Cheshire Cat”, where you provide no argument or justification but simply assert your conclusion as if you’ve already demonstrated it; whereas in reality all that can be seen is the smile. In this respect just blurting about Occam with no justification.
As I pointed out with Occam, the razor is on the side of determinism as it requires fewer assumptions. I do not have to assume there is a mechanism by which thought can alter the deterministic outcomes of physics.
Of course, you ignore this too; and instead focus on peanut #2. Which in this case, is claiming that the laws of physics are not set, and somehow our lack of firm knowledge impacts my argument (whilst Cheshire catting by not specifying how and why).
Of course your new argument has no relevance to your last argument - as I’m not talking about the laws of physics as we understand them - but the actual deterministic and statistical rules everything appears to follow. The point being that even if we don’t know what those rules are, to presume that the mind can change physical things without that change being predicated on some deterministic or statistical laws - requires an additional assumption and thus still fails Occams Razor.
This gets Ignored too; and instead you move onto peanut #3, some nonsense about how you weren’t saying that laws are random, only that they change.
Again - no relevance to Occam, or anything you just said; indeed you’ve dropped yours and my broader argument. You’re instead simply fixating on meaningless triviality.
The problem you have here, is that the laws and theories of physics we have are not so much telling you the way things are - but providing the ability to predict what happens in the world. Right and wrong don’t really have meaning, as much as accurate and inaccurate.
In this respect, and which was my point, the laws of gravity, together with some of the more complex orbital interactions allow us to accurately predict the motions of the planets, calculate rocket trajectories and gravity assist sling shots. The laws of gravity are highly accurate, and we can use them to show the behaviour of gravity is deterministic - for chemistry, the physical behaviour and interaction of chemicals is deterministic also - I can tell you exactly how much energy is released burning natural gas, and how much pressure a water tank will be under is you double the temperature- because we know these laws produce highly accurate predictions.
Some elements are statistical; but highly accurate too. Interference patterns. Quantum tunneling, etc cannot predict individual atoms, but can predict the statistical outcomes highly accurately to such a degree they become deterministic at a large scale.
So in terms of Occam, it doesn’t really matter whether the laws are wrong: because they yield incredibly accurate results: all that matters is whetted what we observe of the world is deterministic - which it is: in this regard the claim that free will exists requires a fundamental violation of our observations - and thus an additional assumption that means your claim is less likely than mine.
Created:
Posted in:
Let’s ignore the bad data for a moment where asylum seekers actually show up to court hearings 89% of the time (at least from the most recent data)
Canada is actually pretty good at irregular border crossings: with asylum claims granted at a pretty decent rate for irregular border crossings - out of 60k in the last few years, only 16k have been rejected, with 22k accepted, and 17k still pending.
We just don’t get that many crossings because, despite our insane welfare systems, because, you know, it’s not welfare people are coming for….
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
As is the idea that we have open borders
This one cracks me up.
I wonder how much illegal immigration would go down, if half the US media stopped falsely reporting that the US border is open, illegals were getting welfare, and were being welcomed in open arms.
I do like GPs troll logic.
Conservatives talk about how the US is the greatest country on the planet, that there’s opportunity for all, that you can succeed if you just put in hard work, the fetishize people who come in to the country with $10 and make their fortune.
The moment people flee extreme poverty, and gang violence - the first thought is “it’s definitely because we’re giving poor kids too much food”.
It’s nonsense, clearly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I kinda covered this.
1.) MPP numbers were tiny. It only hit ~10k by June, at which point crossings were already dropping.
2.) Impacts of MPP on immigrants is still going to be better than much of Latin America living conditions: so still worth the risk and unlikely to be deterrent.
3.) Even your link shows that immigration historically peaks July or prior - then falls. Claiming the fall in June is because of policy is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
4.) if the 64% of crossers that came in families were not deterred by family separation, it makes no sense that they happened to be deterred by MPP.
5.) MPP Didn’t apply to unaccompanied minors - but they fell in line with other groups that were in 2019.
6.) Mexican nationals are way up too in 2021 - MPP doesn’t apply to them.
7.) October 2020 border crossings were 72k. That’s the highest October numbers since at least 2013: higher than 2019. It was already showing that immigration was picking up from august 2020, even with Trump and these policies all in place.
8.) Catch and release was “shut down” in 2018. Remain in Mexico was prominent in early 2019. Trump was notoriously hostile to illegal immigration since his election. Despite this overt hostility, there was still a massive peak of illegal immigration in 2019…. It seems to indicate that the impact of policy changes and announcements are minimal.
9.) MPP announcement was followed by a peak of families crossing the border. If it’s valid to attribute the subsequent fall to MPP, it’s just as valid to attribute the rise to MPP too - for example: it meant families no longer had to worry about being deported back to their home countries and had the opposite effect.
The reality is that all these policy implementations - except for perhaps section 42 expulsions had little observable effects on crossings; and section 42 appears to have encouraged repeat offenders over time - with recidivism rising from 7% to 38% focused mainly on single adults.
There was a lull in immigration after Trump was elected - immigration then peaked in 2019, only to return back to Obama levels at the start of 2020, before dropping off the map when Covid hit in March 2020. Rates began picking up again in September 2020 - with august 2020 being higher than the august leading up to the 2019 peak.
Like I said in the remainder of my post; the data seems to clearly point away from any particular policy change being the cause. While perception could be a factor; the single biggest data point that indicates what’s going on is recidivism; which gives the impression that it’s Trumps section 42 expulsions, which Biden is maintaining, that is having the biggest policy impact.
Again, I would presume that all the right wing media telling us the border is open and everyone is being allowed in; is having some level of positive effect on immigration numbers; as is the simple concept that there were many families that didn’t cross last year due to the pandemic that are crossing now.
1.) MPP numbers were tiny. It only hit ~10k by June, at which point crossings were already dropping.
2.) Impacts of MPP on immigrants is still going to be better than much of Latin America living conditions: so still worth the risk and unlikely to be deterrent.
3.) Even your link shows that immigration historically peaks July or prior - then falls. Claiming the fall in June is because of policy is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
4.) if the 64% of crossers that came in families were not deterred by family separation, it makes no sense that they happened to be deterred by MPP.
5.) MPP Didn’t apply to unaccompanied minors - but they fell in line with other groups that were in 2019.
6.) Mexican nationals are way up too in 2021 - MPP doesn’t apply to them.
7.) October 2020 border crossings were 72k. That’s the highest October numbers since at least 2013: higher than 2019. It was already showing that immigration was picking up from august 2020, even with Trump and these policies all in place.
8.) Catch and release was “shut down” in 2018. Remain in Mexico was prominent in early 2019. Trump was notoriously hostile to illegal immigration since his election. Despite this overt hostility, there was still a massive peak of illegal immigration in 2019…. It seems to indicate that the impact of policy changes and announcements are minimal.
9.) MPP announcement was followed by a peak of families crossing the border. If it’s valid to attribute the subsequent fall to MPP, it’s just as valid to attribute the rise to MPP too - for example: it meant families no longer had to worry about being deported back to their home countries and had the opposite effect.
The reality is that all these policy implementations - except for perhaps section 42 expulsions had little observable effects on crossings; and section 42 appears to have encouraged repeat offenders over time - with recidivism rising from 7% to 38% focused mainly on single adults.
There was a lull in immigration after Trump was elected - immigration then peaked in 2019, only to return back to Obama levels at the start of 2020, before dropping off the map when Covid hit in March 2020. Rates began picking up again in September 2020 - with august 2020 being higher than the august leading up to the 2019 peak.
Like I said in the remainder of my post; the data seems to clearly point away from any particular policy change being the cause. While perception could be a factor; the single biggest data point that indicates what’s going on is recidivism; which gives the impression that it’s Trumps section 42 expulsions, which Biden is maintaining, that is having the biggest policy impact.
Again, I would presume that all the right wing media telling us the border is open and everyone is being allowed in; is having some level of positive effect on immigration numbers; as is the simple concept that there were many families that didn’t cross last year due to the pandemic that are crossing now.
Created: