Total posts: 2,768
-->
@Plisken
Would it be a bad thing? Pass, potentially: given that’s essentially what happened in the last two administrations and things got substantially worse - it’s likely not a great idea.
The main issue is that why treat that one thing in isolation?
It’s like asking “why is it a bad thing to be leaving a baseball stadium with a baseball bat???” On its own it sounds reasonable enough.
Not so reasonable if it’s the response to the question “why is your baseball bat covered in blood, and why are you standing over an unconscious person with an obvious blunt force head injury”.
Created:
-->
@Plisken
That was when the Ukrainian Policy was changed during the Conventiom to be softer on Payton - seen as incredibly odd.
Created:
Whatever he did or didnt owe, the bottom line is that you retards trotted out the Russian collusion story like it was indisputable truth. It has since been proven to be a big fat nothing burger. No collusion. No connection to Trump. Sucks to be you. Try again, suckers.
Everything you’ve said there is factually untrue.
What we know, is that Trump, Manafort, Trump Jr, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn all actively wanted something from Russia, and were going through a variety of different channels to get it (Trump Tower, debt relief, dirt, dirt, dirt + help for Turkey). They all wanted to their Russian interests to help them in some arena.
All of them, were involved in talking to, or fielding multiple Russian or Russian related approaches for information or to give dirt on a number of different occasions.
There were several examples of “odd” behaviours - praise for Putin, removal of arming Ukrainian reveled plank, attempts to undermine sanctions at the outset of the administration.
Moreover, in every single case, the individuals involved have repeatedly lied about their involvement, who they met and how they were involved.
So, you’re making the claim that there was no collusion.
The facts are that you had multiple individuals who wanted to collude on Trumps side, who had multiple interactions with Russians who wanted the Trumps to collude - in some cases holding actual meetings with Russians about collusion. After Trump was nominated, various policy decisions were started that looked preferable to Russia, and the administration and those involved have repeatedly lied about it and mentioned none of this to the FBI at the time despite being warned and despite knowing the Russians were involved.
That’s damning on its own right - as just from the facts it means two groups who wanted to collude were in the same room attending a meeting about them colluding - and the only proof they didn’t was from people who initially denied the meeting even happened...
If you believe that, I know some Magic Bean salesmen who could make you a great deal!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
As we know, you’re a compulsive liar who wants to systematically ignore key and important facts to make his side look better, as you have neither any arguments or any positions that survive any logical scrutiny.
I would suggest you create a shell corporation and borrow money through the Mob. When you don’t pay, and they come to break your legs: I’m sure you’re excuse that the money is with an LLC will absolutely work, and will not make these shady individuals give up on getting their money back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
This is a surprisingly accurate, and catchy explanation of the development of organisms - and how this plays into evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Let’s ignore for the moment, the demonstrable process of gene duplication, which fundamental refutes you’re entire position in its own right; what you’re doing is presenting your own arbitrary opinion (rather than anything supported by evidence) as if it’s some impassable genetic barrier:
For example let’s start with an antelope type creature.
It loses its hair, it’s nose gets smaller and higher - I’m sure just micro evolution of traits. It’s legs get smaller, it’s hands get bigger. The layer of fat beneath its skin gets thicker, it’s lungs get bigger, tail gets longer and flatter. The back legs get so small they are invisible.
And oops - you now have a whale from an antelope. There’s no major leaps, no new traits - just minor changes in size and shape that we have substantial and ample experimental and observational evidence to know can easily change.
Take a Fish, make the skeleton at the tip of the fins more boney, thin the lining of the swim bladder, harden the scales, make the central fin spin thicker, and point all boney spins downwards From the end of the fin - and increase the size of swim bladder and - oops you have an amphibian.
The main problem you have is you have a massively naive and oversimplistic understanding of organism development. You’re viewing DNA as if a trait is a thing you can trace to a definable gene. Sure, eye colour is traceable to a gene, hair colour too: but an arm? There is no arm gene, there are thousands of different genes that turn on and turn off in a particular combination and order: yielding an arm - but also contribute to legs, chest, neck and others.
The building blocks of the arm? Genes that mediate proteins that are unique to Skin cells, bone, veins, muscles, tendons, etc: have barely changed.
In that sense the idea that an “arm” is genetically much different than a wing is nonsensical. They’re pretty much the same thing just with different gene expressions controlled by very mutable genes that we can see changing in all animals today.
Created:
-->
@Grugore
What on earth is this nonsense?
The argument seems to be that Paul Manafort wasnt in debt to the Russians by $17m - a variety of shell companies that Paul Manafort owned were in debt to the Russians by $17m?
That’s a practical distinction when you’re the owner of Sears, but isn’t a particularly important distinction when you’re in debt to unsavoury Russians with whom there is a non-zero chance could arrange for you to be discovered unconscious on a park bench. LLCs in this regard aren’t going to mean the Oligarch is going to be less pissed off with you. What’s more, a substantial fraction of Manaforts work has come in via the Russians, the oligarchs and those aligned with them: in some respects it’s probable that being found on a park bench is preferable than being black listed - at least the park bench will probably land you insurance payments.
All this is to say that if you think the issue here is about legality, you’re missing the point. This was never about whether the debt was illegal: Manafort has done enough other illegal things to make it a drop in a bucket even if it were.
The issue here is, and always was - about leverage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
And the NYT
And Buzzfeed
And Salon
And the daily beast
So the idea that it isnt being mentioned in “the liberal media”, is largely hilarious.
it was broken by the Liberal media.
If you want democratic outrage, you’ve seen it bein compares negatively to Russia manipulation by Mark Warner, and it was denounced by Doug Jones who asked for an investigation into it.
Now, this is the type of localized dirty tricks you see in almost every campaign in some way. This pretty small single example in one senate race, broken by a liberal media network and being investigated doesn’t yet warrant wider national democratic rebuke. Especially as it’s 8 days old and there are later and more pressing stories.
If it turns out to be a wider used tactic in the midterms, then I’ll be right with you - but at this point I don’t see it as significantly as the voter fraud by a republican in NC - voter suppression in Georgia, and a multitude of other states, the Republican power grab in states where the governerships have been turned over, or the conspiracy theories, or a gubernatorial candidate saying he was going to stamp on his opponents face, or racist or misleading robo calls in multiple different states. I wouldn’t necessarily expect the entire Republican Party to be forced to rebuke all of themz
If it was a very close presidential race, and being conducted by the Russians, and pretty comprehensive, and involved illegal hacking of various people and releasing their data, and the presidential campaign didn’t denounce it, and pretended it didn’t even happen, and then went on to do nothing about it, then you may have cause for comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I can judge, I don’t have the time to debate right now :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah who needs Reality when you can simply spew whatever untrue nonsense you chose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank you for completely conceding the point.
Arguments are so much easier when you admit the false nonsense you’re spewing. Well done sir, it takes a brave man to admit he’s wrong!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
yeah, you’re absolutely right. There’s absolutely no democratic component to cabinet appointees at all. Pfft the OP should know better.
By the way this OP is harping on, its as if he thinks the constitution has some laughable madisonian style rule that cabinet appointees must be approved by a publically elected body through some sort of advise and consent clause.
What a trolling idiot, amiright?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So you had no problem, when Russia were doing it, and it “had no effect”, and you seem to be outraged now that democrats apparently did it?
I saw this in WaPo, Axios, Politico, and even Fox News pointed out it was broken by the NYT: please tell more about how this is not being covered by “the liberal media”.
This type of nonsense is shitty, and shouldn’t be happening: but I find conservative faux outrage, yet again, the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Created:
One of these days I’m going to create a thread to see if people can tell random crazy Kanye quotes apart from stuff RM says when he’s mad.
“I'm doing pretty good as far as geniuses go ... I'm like a machine. I'm a robot. You cannot offend a robot ... I'm going down as a legend, whether or not you like me or not”
Kanye? Of Ranye?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
After consulting The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, I can authoritatively confirm that being a c*** is not in and of itself mental illness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Did you know that the “just” usernames in DDO start at 26500 on the people list if sorted by username and have about 1000 different usernames? And include two “justmike” accounts? There are also more accounts starting with “mike”?
Are they all mike the site owner, and did you know them all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Ok, that’s nice.
What I’m talking about, though, is what is the intent behind the “sources” category in the debate voting, what is this trying to say so that voters have a clearer picture of how and why to cast votes instead of everyone having their own idea.
but thanks for your input.
Created:
Posted in:
So, I would like to see some additions to the CoC - not to change the voting regulations, but to clearly add:
- What the intent or “spirit” of a given criteria should be used for.
- A possible explanation of what happens if someone violates the CoC but meets the spirit - or vice versa.
I ask this because there have been several discussion and disagreements on the fundamental meaning of some of these conditions, and if everyone is assuming the intent is something else, everyone will be meeting the CoC but all implicitly different reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Modernization of Russian Federation's airborne forces military equipment
In December 2018, The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reported on the modernization of about 600 airborne combat vehicles. It is planned that the modernization of BMD-2 to the level of BMD-2K-AU and BMD-2M will begin in 2021.
BMD-2 - unpretentious in service, Highly passable combat vehicle, But given the characteristics of modern weapons, Which in recent years has stepped far forward, It became necessary to upgrade these systems. The new BMD will be equipped with an anti-tank missile system, A modern digital reconnaissance, Control and communications complex, An integrated automated control system at the tactical level, As well as automatic target tracking for firing various types of weapons during the day and night, On the go and afloat. In addition, The upgraded BMD will remain airborne and will perform tasks as part of the airborne paratroop units.
The new version of the combat vehicle will be equipped with a single Bereg military compartment with standardized weapons of the latest modification of the BMD-4 airborne combat vehicle. Due to this, It will be possible to fire not only on manpower, But also on armored vehicles and air targets.
The Kornet anti-tank complex mounted on the BMD -2M was also upgraded, Which made it possible to fire at battle tanks and other armored vehicles 6 km away. In addition, The shooting of the UM "Cornet-EM" is carried out on the principle of "shot-forgotten" in the exceeded mode to reduce the likelihood of detection.
The new version of the machines is also equipped with radio stations R-168-25U-2, Weapon stabilizers 2E36-6. Thus, The modernized BMD-2M was able to fire all kinds of weapons from the spot, On the move, Afloat, Day and night using a target tracking machine.
Innovations will also affect the commanding machines BMD-2K. This project also assumes installation on existing commander automated unified machines of the new equipment. Such a revision affected only the complex of radio-electronic means and is intended to enhance the capabilities of the commanding BMD in the management of the paratrooper battalion.
Thus, A complex of automation equipment and communications of the 3rd type (so-called KSAS-3) will be installed on the base BMD-2K, Intended for use by the commander of the parachute battalion. This equipment is part of the automated control system of airborne assault division "Polet-K". The remaining characteristics of the machine, Including the power plant and weapons, Remain the same.
This approach to modernization will not only greatly facilitate the simultaneous operation of equipment, But also ensure their joint combat work.
Created:
Posted in:
If only there was some possible way of knowing that moderation standards would become more lax if people pilloried the moderators for weeks for being too harsh. This has al come right out of the blue.
Created:
Posted in:
Whenever Bsh explains a ban, it sounds like this:
He abandoned an academic career in 1969 to pursue a primitive lifestyle. Between 1978 and 1995, he killed three people and injured 23 others in an attempt to start a revolution by conducting a nationwide bombing campaign targeting people involved with modern technology.He was banned for 4 days.
Not to say it’s wrong - just to point out the things being done are often excessive followed by moderation attempts to be, well, moderate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
No you are still trying to use your own judgement in analyzing debates instead of coming in like a new born alien. It's clear even from your last statement where you try to determine the "strength" of arguments.
I come in like a newborn alien, that’s literally what I do. The person, the premise, the facts and the arguments are treated on their own on their own merit, and compared. I don’t treat anything refuted or not refuted unless it’s described.
What you’re confused (or most likely simpl butthurt) about, I suspect, is that you’re confusing the way judgement has to be used:
To decide whether Argument A refutes Argument B, a voter has to use their judgement. To decide whether pro made better arguments than Con, when there are multiple arguments, a voter has to use their judgement.
It is literally impossible to not use your judgement.
You just have to use your judgement based on what the individuals in the debate say and not make arguments for people, and what they say only. That’s no different from how any other person votes. My main difference is that I try and be transparent I’m explaing the details of why I selected A as refuting B.
Thats so people can object to any specific reasons I’ve given: or as what normally happens, which is being told that my twenty page long core is terrible with absolutely no specific examples or explanations of why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I think you misunderstand.
If Pro makes argument A, and con refutes with B, if con makes argument C and pro refutes with D:
As a voter you need to determine whether B refutes A and whether D refutes C, and in the case of a draw how A stacks up to C as a comparative argument. All require comparative analysis of strength.
Weighting strength is used as a method of comparrison not of independent scoring.
IE: you don’t judge strength independently of what I said to award a win: “your argument is shitty and it doesn’t count - I award points to con”, but to allow a direct comparison of arguments: “pro won 5 arguments - con won 5, but cons arguments better support the premise under contention due to x/y/z”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
”Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one set of arguments and counterarguments outweighed and/or precluded another set of them, and then, in turn, how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss. This requires situating the arguments and counterarguments being analyzed within the context of the debate as a whole.”
Yes. I have to consider how strong one side argues their position compared to another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Actually if you were paying attention, I wasnt actually insulting him personally - though I will now point out that he’s corrupt, and the most plausible explanation of all the facts is that he’s repeatedly broken the law and doesn’t have America’s best interests at heart.
Now, parroting out Fox News talking points the moment you need to defend orange man, is a bit odd. If you’re just going to throw out a bunch of inane nonsense whenever you are unable to defend what you believe, this type of site is probably not good for you.
Unfortunately for you, Trump is strong on borders, strong on defense, and fighting for America, and all the rest in the same way the Emperor is strong on Fashion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
orange man good.
criticsm bad.
reality bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wait, what?
I must have really hit a nerve if you decided to drop the pretext trolling and skipped straight to misrepresentation and insults!
Orange man holy.
Criticism bad.
Reality that doesn’t agree with me, bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Considering that no one in their right mind would think those being investigated by the FBI should be able to exercise power over their investigation, and given that the only people who can be forgiven for thinking that “complaints” are the same thing as “holding people accountable”, are 80 year old British women with dementia: it seems pretty self evident is that you’re just trying to say something/ anything to make it sound like there is a valid counter argument.
Orange man holy.
Criticism bad.
Rational argument bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh yeah, I forgot that you seem completely unable to give a sensible or rational response to anything
Perhaps we should give criminals control of how long they should be sentenced! Or put businesses in charges of how much they get taxed?
i forgot:
Orange man good.
Criticism bad.
Considering the possibility orange man is a criminal bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who holds the FBI accountable for malfeasance?
I think we should all be able to agree, probably not people being investigated by the FBI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I can’t think of a more fitting or ironic tribute to Ethangs ban, than this thread: someone making a particular claim about his ban - that claim being disproven with hard evidence - then the person making the claim doubling down and dismissed all the evidence. It’s like a microcosm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
you appear to be supporting flat earth. That’s an alarm bell for anyone’s mental health.
Created:
Posted in:
A.) Yeah, I suspect you either don’t really get what a genetic fallacy is, or you don’t really get what my argument is. I am not specifically discounting your God because of all the other failures. The argument is saying both that the repeated failures of Gods in the past lends credibility to the idea that God doesn’t exist and it’s just made up - AND as multiple Gods already defined, it makes it more likely that a newly defined God based on a made up God with simple changes is also made up due to humans propensity to invent Gods - neither of those two positions are the genetic fallacy.
B.) I’m not limiting my investigation - again this is a misrepresentation. As I said: that no evidence has been found despite how far humanity has come is evidence against God. That evidence has been found - and turned out not to be evidence with further analysis is precisely what I’m basing this argument on.
C.) No you can’t prove a negative - you’re discussing paradoxes. We can disprove multiple Gods on paradoxes, but if you simply redefine God to something unprovable and generic - you can’t prove it doesn’t exist. For example, I can’t prove an invisible dragon that doesn’t interact with matter lives in my living room. But your count here completely misses the points
D.) You could definitively proove God exists, he could appear to us all at the same time - for example. Magic is verifiable. We can absolute determine the most rational examples - and this is what I have done - mainly being ignored or misrepresented. This was the whole point of D - providing explicit evidence that supports the atheist position - you appear to have simply dismissed that here.
E.) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if it is reasonable to believe their should be evidence. Again you miss the point. Now, you keep saying you can gain evidence rationally - as I said rationalism is only as good as the assumptions you make - if you can’t validate the assumptions - you can’t validate the conclusions. As you have no means to validate any of your assumptions presented so far in any part - this ceases to be evidence of anything at all. Again you appear to have ignored this.
F.) I’ve mentioned it multiple times. The premise that the values could be anything different is asserted without any reason or evidence - hence negatinf the validity conclusion.
G.) Again - no - every example provided so far relies on premises which rely on some premise you can’t confirm without verification. By all means show me a rational argument for God - and I will show you how the premises are dependent on assumptions that cannot be demonstrated.
H.) Yes - and I have done that - and it clearly shows that the weight is on the Atheists side as every fact so far is consistent with the idea that God does not exist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1.) yes
2.) they’re optional - so that’s fine. (Please add a referenced link or pinned post so they’re easy to reference in debate - or perhaps add a selectable option), default should be regular CoC rules.
3.) yes
4.) YES
5.) Maybe - to discuss in another thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It is completely reasonable to wonder why a particular constant holds the value it does - but the fine tuning argument takes it even further by asserting that the value is specifically set to some number, out of some arbitrarily large range. The second part to that is the assumed conclusion by selecting a specific option out of multiple equally valid known options, and an unknown number of unknown valid options.
In my view this whole argument is inside out - postdictive rationalization and data cherry picking, rather than a more outside in rationalization - where you describe what a designed universe would look like - then use that description to make predictions.
That inherently leads to what I’m going to call Ramshutu’s Gambit:
P1.) If God has a set of coherent motivations and desires for creating the universe and
P2.) God is more capable of creating a universe that full meets those desires and motivations than I am,
C.) If you can postulate a coherent set of desires and motivations for a God for which I can create a better suited universe - A God with those set of motivations and desires cannot exist. OR
C2.) The desires and motivations specified deviates from any postulated God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
My central contentions are actually that:
A.) You can’t talk about your version of God that you’ve defined as an isolated contention without talking about the thousands of years of Gods that have all ended up being disproven by some means or another. If everyone who has proposed a God who did X and Y up until now have been wrong about their Gods, it is reasonable to presume that your one is too if you assert it without evidence.
B.) Every single God ever proposed causes direct and measurable effects on the universe and his adherents - if it’s been thousands of years and we still have found no evidence of these supposed effects - despite incredible advances in science, technology, and measurement - it’s most likely due to that God not existing, given that it’s reasonable to presume that we’d have some evidence by now.
C.) Evidence that God doesn’t exist is different in nature than evidence that would support God. We can’t prove a negative, so the evidence is primarily historical assessment of prior claims and prior failures of God (A), together with assessments of what we could have seen had he actually ecosystems (B). Theists often attempt to change the burden here by implicitly trying to discount as valid this evidence.
After you ignored these, you simply bombarded me with other questions, leading me to sub contentions:
D.) One key property of a God that definitely and objectively exists vs one that definitely doesn’t - is that the former is measurable and the latter is not. Claiming that God is not measurable confirms that your God has key properties in common with a God that doesn’t exist.
E.) Repeatedly arguing that your God is not measurable, and you can’t have any direct evidence that he exists, strongly supports the Atheist position as a result because we agree with you - we just attribute the lack of evidence to lack of existence whereas you do not - as we know it’s possible for things not to exist, and were not sure that a God could exist - it kinda lends support to the idea that God does not exist.
F.) Logical conclusions are only as good as theor premises, if you can’t validate the premise as true, you can’t validate the conclusion. Relying on asserted premises for which you have no clue as to their validity other than a feeling of whether they are accurate - are invalid and should not be considered proofs unless implicitly predicated on the premises (if this then that).
G.) You can’t say God leaves no measurable effects - and then cite measurable effects as proof he exists. That’s just kettle logic.
once these were also mostly ignored it led to the following:
H.) The asserted premises of the fine tuning argument cannot be proven true, so the conclusion is implicitly begging the question. When you’re makig specific claims about how the universe does or doesn’t work, this must be confirmed against the universe by definition.
So no, these aren’t my main contentions my main contentions are they key points you have ignored over the preceding two pages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
My point is that if logic alone is not enough to demonstrate the truth of something, if there must also be corroborating empirical evidence to demonstrate that something is true, then each and every statement you make to purport the truth of something, which is based on logic alone at this point, is pending corroborating empirical evidence.
There are several important things here.
Firstly - you’ve dropped maybe a dozen critical arguments that all argue against your position. Do you concede all of these? Or are you actually planning on engaging on anything rather than ask an unending series of questions that appear to be nominally answered at least once in the previous arguments you’ve ignored.
Secondly - if you read what I just said, I supported the conclusions that you cannot make your claims via logic alone empirically - this means regardless of whether what you just said is correct - it doesn’t change the conclusion that you cannot make your claims via logic alone.
Thirdly - for something to be true as humans define the word - it must be something that agrees with reality. By definition you can’t tell whether something agrees with reality without basing that of knowledge of what reality is.
Finally, and most importantly. Is that empiricism actually givea you a way to disprove empiricisms easily: Give an example of any objective knowledge or truth about reality that can be determined by everyone to be true - that has been determined to be true without using empiricism.
Created:
Was it by a difference of 20% or more? Cause that is what the polls said
If all those were really people claiming to vote for Hillery that the polls gave her a 20% lead, what happened to them? Did they evaporate? Leave the Earth? Change their minds 4 hours before voting? If the poll were not bogus, how did Trump win?
Very well, lets dig a little deeper. How many polls showed Hillary with a 20% lead on election day?Many. MSNBC, CNN, BBC, HUFFPOST, VOX
CNN: 4% - 5 days before the election showing only a small gap between Clinton and Trump
MSNBC - the day before the election showing polls all tightening. Showing multiple polls at around 4%
BBC - shows 4% too:
Huffington Post (a little higher at 5.3%):
Vox (3-4%)
As shown: the above quoted statements are untrue.
Liecumulator count: 3
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You’re actually missing a step there.
Sure, you can change a universal constant to see what affect it could have on the universe. But why do you feel it’s reasonable to conclude that it is possible that such constants could hold any other value?
This is the problem: the fine tuning around assumes - without any reason or justification - that all these values are free to hold any possible combintion of values to any degree.
How potentially variable is the constant of, say, the mass of an electron? 0.0001%? 1%? 100000000%? In this regard it should be obvious that how fine tuned you could consider the universe is directly dependent on how much you assume these constants are variable. The fine tuning of the universe, is somewhere between 0 and infinite depending on what you assume - which makes the whole exercise meaningless and very much the form of an assumed conclusion.
Created:
CNN: 4% - 5 days before the election showing only a small gap between Clinton and Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/presidential-polls-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election-2016/index.html
MSNBC - the day before the election showing polls all tightening. Showing multiple polls at around 4%
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/election-days-eve-latest-polls-point-similar-direction
BBC - shows 4% too:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37450661
Huffington Post (a little higher at 5.3%):
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
Vox (3-4%)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/8/13559960/polls-hillary-trump-2016
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/presidential-polls-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election-2016/index.html
MSNBC - the day before the election showing polls all tightening. Showing multiple polls at around 4%
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/election-days-eve-latest-polls-point-similar-direction
BBC - shows 4% too:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37450661
Huffington Post (a little higher at 5.3%):
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
Vox (3-4%)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/8/13559960/polls-hillary-trump-2016
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Well, for the first - you can validate that these constants were derived empirically by observations of text books and direct consultation with Luther human beings.
For the second point, as I said, it’s a premise of your argument so you have to validate whether it’s true or not. You can empirically validate that the only real way of doing that is by empirical validation by looking at the demonstrable knowledge and practical applicatiok that comes empirical validation vs logical validation: with nothing you see around you being the result of logic alone.
Look at it this way: for there to be fine tuning, it must be true that physical constants are not truly constant, (there’s a whole lot of other issues too), how have you determined that these physical constants are not really constant, what is your proof? How do you know it’s true?
What you’re doing, though, is a brilliant example of avoidance. You’ve avoided answering any specific questions, or acknowledging any point I’m raising throughout this exchange - you’ve dropped every point raised, you’ve ignored every issue that I have pointed out. Instead you keep trying to push the burden back to me - why are you trying to avoid a discussion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
No, the fine tuning of the universe requires empirical validation.
- All the universal constants are based on measured values, and the mathematical laws of physics which are empirically validated.
- For there to be fine tuning, you need to determine whether these constants can be modified or be different from what they are. You can’t just assume they are, you can’t posit that they are, you can’t just arbitrarily decide that these physical CONSTANTs are not really —->CONSTANT<—. How would you determine that they could even change without an empirically validated mathematical theory that implies they could, or some measurement that showed they could.
As a result, the logical theory, depends on speculative conjecture and is meaningless in its own right without empirical validation to demonstrate that the premises it relies upon are true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
oops, sorry: I forgot to add, you suck, you were rude to my grandmother and I’m pretty sure I saw you eat spiders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I think it would be fair to say that MEEP in general is a good idea - until people raise objections to it, it seems everyone has argued assuming that it’s a great way to go.
The problem with open voting discussions right now, is that you’re just trying to tweak the system. Everyone’s going to have a big opinion when the first votes start coming in one way or another. I don’t think you’ll get a good agreement either way.
I would suggest this: go for the laxer vote moderation as an opt-in and review it after a few debates that use it with public feedback if it’s not selected by default, it doesn’t hurt anyone.
but it’s pretty clear that there’s a lot of issues people have with the voting system. I see no harm in gathering people’s thoughts and ideas in a constructive forum - what are the perceived issues, how does it affect debates, ideas for improvement etc. Just as a period of intelligence gathering so we can get a wide set of thoughts and ideas before thinking about increments changes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So it seems you’re mostly just ignoring the things I’m saying and instead just throwing questions back that are mostly already covered.
So to start with:
1.) Does a programmer affect the simulation?
If God does not affect the universe in any detectable way: then No God every defined by any religion can possibly exist as all religions speak of examples, actions and incidence of God affecting the universe. Magic is empirically validatable.. Are you agreeing with this? If so far from being an attack on my argument - it validates the core premise - that all God’s so far, all the Gods from which your proposed God is the most recent definition - do not exist. In this case, this supports my position.
Secondly, as I also pointed out in my last post: A god that doesn’t exist is undectable and has no measurable effect on the universe: a God that everyone could agree objectively and definitively exists, is one that everyone could see and validate for ourselves. If you are arguing that you’re God has the key property that all made up Gods share - that is basically supporting my case.
2.) Logic is actually empirically validatable. You can confirm the law of non contradiction every day through measurement, and the rudimentary laws of logic can be confirmed through repeated observation. Indeed, the core laws of logic can actually be refuted to some generic degree through the laws of quantum physics - which to some degree refute the laws of non contradiction.
3.) The “fine tune: universe” is a set of dimensionless variables - how do you know they don’t change? How do you know whether if they changed, what the effect on other properties of the universe, how do you even know it’s possible for them to be different? The answer to all of all of these call into two categories: ones that you can empirically validate: and ones that you can’t answer. As a result, you can tell me until you’re blue in the face that the mass of an electron could be different, but you may as well be pulling that conclusion out of your butt - because you can’t show me that is the case.
4.) Yes I know what the Genetic Fallacy. Do you? I would suggest you google what it means - because the genetic fallacy is not what you seem to be arguing (which is where the argument is dependent on a particular premise that may not be true) - which is not a genetic fallacy but a hasty generalization.
5.) Unfortunately you can only use logic alone to prove something is true in the case where you can control and define the premisss upon which it relies. IE: I can use logic to prove all zigs are zags, if I state that all zigs are Zogs and all zigs are Zags. That may or may not be true objectively, but in the context of that statement it’s true. That’s how you can have formal mathematical proofs in many ways. Saying that, maths is itself empirically validatable in its own right.
The main issue with using logic alone in a universal context, is that any logical statement relies on premises. If the premises are false, the conclusions are false. How do you establish that your premises are true without any objective determination that they are true?
Created: