fauxlaw

3RU7AL, your logic is flawed at the outset by claiming probability is randomness. Not at all. Probability is descriptive of our knowledge about a future event whose results will be reported in the future, but the knowledge now is expressed as a percentile of accuracy [probability], typically 95%, allowing for a plus/minus margin of error, also expressed as a percentile; the lower, the better. Randomness is entirely different, reflecting the nature of random state changes that cannot be predicted with any degree of probability. Therefore, probability and randomness are not only not the same; they are virtually polar opposites.

Therefore if [but not also only if] probability is fundamental, it can reflect choice.

And if probability is not fundamental, that is, if determinism is fundamental, there is no choice.

The outcome is, therefore, potentially different.

As a result, the answer to the question, "is probability just an expression of man's ignorance?" is: No. Probability, being a functional characteristic of knowledge, clearly demonstrates that it is not ignorance, because probability has the potential to be 95% accurate in the prediction of a future outcome.

Again,. you misread my commentary. I do not claim that deforestation and anthropogenic greenhouse gases do not affect the climate. I'm just saying there is no evidence anthropogenic cause is the only cause. In fact, the most damaging GHG is not CO2, but CH4, and every living thing on the planet emits CH4 every day from every organism, and they will every day of their entire lives. Therefore, the idea of eliminating its emission is absurd. However, the fact also is that5, at least in the U.S., Reforestation has been on the increase since the 1920s. According to https://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforestation-us-3804.html  "The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land..." and "In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period."  This is an argument. Cited by source.

Yes, but at the time of a certain debate, it was not yet changed, and yet you put your finger on the scale in that debate, making it a two-on-one debate. An impossible situation. Thank you very much. Excuse me if I was not amused.

If you do not couple tax revenue to accountable expenditure, you end up funding scientific studies that determine how wide a whore must spread her legs to achieve mutual, maximum satisfaction with a paying sex partner. Probably varies by State. You think I'm kidding?

Y'all seem to want a variety of tax systems, but do not equate that system to an accountable budgeting system of expenditure. The result is a decoupled ledger. How is that expected to work? Your tax revenue MUST be coupled to a controlled budget, or you're all pissing in the wind.

The one issue I have with any taxing system applied is that none effectively manage government expenditure. There is the bottom line of revenue collection, regardless of the system of its collection. Ignore that governments MUST create and hold to a strict budget, and strictly manage to that budget by congressional action of legislation that imposes expenditure justification and accountability according to [in the USA] strict adherence to the specific 17 items Congress is mandated to legislate [US Constitution, Article I, section 8], and eliminate all other concerns, releasing other concerns to State and Local control to manage, and no tax system will achieve its intent. 

A very interesting set-up, and selection of judges. I point specifically to Judging rule #1, and pose it to Ragnar: "Fact check every single contention." I'd like to know how debaters will contend a fact without offering a source, and how judges will fact check them without reviewing a cited source unless the fact happens to be common knowledge. Justify this rule as a judge in this tourney relative to Ragnar's judgment in other debates. I also point to the commentary on the typical debate argument entry page composed by DebateArt relative to the necessity of sourcing. Ragnar will know exactly to what I refer relative to judging. DebartArt might chime in, as well.

Just curious.

Did I say it wasn't? No, I did not! Why doesn't anyone read with whole comprehension, anymore? This is not a cafeteria. You don't pick and choose. It's how y'all read the Constitution, and come up with idiotic ideas like "separation of church and state," which it does not say, "right to privacy," which it does not say, "birthright citizenship," which it does not say. Hell, it doers not even say "congressional investigation," yet it seems that's all they do.

Anthropogenic climate change is a fact. I don't deny it. What I contend is that it does not have a majority influence, and never did. The "scientific community" is as diverse as is "Congress." Neither are one-sided organizations. Is that so hard to understand?

The "scientific community" does NOT say that there is one, ideal climate. Hell, they don't even say that any climate is in stasis. Is that so hard to understand?

Look. When we land on Mars, we will discover the ancient ruins of a once intelligent civilization that became obsessed with a concept they called "climate change." We will witness the vast wasteland resulting from their solution: net zero emissions. To accomplish it, they eliminated all sources of GHG emissions, meaning they eliminated all lifeforms that lived, died, and decomposed to an organic petroleum crude. Thus, the achievement of net zero. However, as we learned from Jurassic Park, life finds a way, and the cycle begins again. Net, plus. Congratulations.

The camera shows Hidin' Biden, on the rare occasion he comes out of hiding, coming off his plane, waving to an empty field, regardless where he goes. Trump, according to the camera, comes off his plane waving to a sea of supporters, regardless where he goes. That tells me more that jaded polls, hoping to influence the grass in the fields. Too bad grass blades don't vote. With the dumping of so many mail-in ballots, maybe they will. So, "Biden elected by grass," is the headline? Well, maybe he can pass min wage for grass. Low profile voter; low profile wage goal. Seems fitting.

Anthropogenic climate change is one of very small percentage of influence, suggested by the fact that Earth has seen climate change of far greater fluctuation prior to man's entry on stage than by his actions while on stage, ignorantly or by choice. We will end our existence far sooner by our choice to combat one another than we will by our poor environmental choices. Both we, and the environment, are amazingly resilient to our effect on the environment, witnessed by, for example, the growth of ice in some regions of Antarctica and Greenland while other sites see ice reduction. Besides, who said the Earth has one, ideal climate we should strive to achieve? We are a planet of numerous ideal climates, all dependent on location, location, location. Real estate, natural and cultivated, uses that mantra.

Did my comment mention an increaser? No, I do not suggest it. Your reading comprehension suggests you have come of age in a period of declining educational success, in favor of cultivating your feelings about subjects rather than a solid understanding of the subjects; your feelings be damned. However, know, as well, that in the time since the industrial revolution, our population has increased two-fold; a factor you cannot ignore. So, has the rate of accidents increased, or merely the number of them? I leave it t you to figure that out; I am not your tutor.

I have a PhD in history, my friend. You don't need to lecture. You?

History says, even after 50 years of OSHA regulation, that the leading cause of worker death is motor vehicle accidents, and the majority of those is driver error. Next is falls, and the leading cause of that is worker error. That's history. Industry has been fighting against worker irresponsibility since the industrial revolution. Highest issue: training retention. You can lead a horse to water...

Re: your forest: in the U.S. [not world], according to https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf

400 years ago, the land mass that is now USA had 1B acres of forest. That declined to a low in 1910 to 700M acres. Since 1910, despite a 200% rise in population, in the U.S. forest land has risen to 770M acres. Most of the 300M acres last has been converted to agricultural land.

Suppose you try to create a model that is somewhat approximate to the natural world. You offer a model that is exactly as absurd as the models representing the effects of a tsunami: a rectangular, flat-bottomed, flat-sided steel tank with a bid paddle at one end, and a miniature sandy beach on the other, a container that is almost exactly, so "science" says, identical to every ocean in the world. Sure. I've been in all five oceans. Not one looks like that. Nor does your model look like earth, other than by approximate shape. There's more involved than shape, my friend.

I am talking about charitable giving, and you throw me an industrial fire, with complaint about wages. I don't see the connection, and will not ask for one. I doubt one exists. Try stayng on point.

No, I don't mean to discount my idea of candidates asking the questions and not having a moderator

I am going to go out on a limb here in support of RM even though RM & I have had our disagreements, but I don't mind disagreements. I do mind Mods who put a thumb on the scale by, like Chris Wallace, entering a debate instead of merely voting.

Yes, I agree

Good questions, RM. But, yes, I think if the private sector were to left to its profiteering and competition because the givernment got out of the welfare business [that is not what Madison meant by "the general welfare," by the way] to be more charitable than they are now, the system would work very well. Corporate America is already more charitable than you imagine, but figures if there's a givernment [I am misspelling on purpose] doing it, their contribution is not necessary to extend. It's actually the way it used to be done.

Yes, good idea, but when wold media relinquish that role? Which is actually a good rebuttal to my idea.

What in the world could be desirable about that? Universal understanding sounds like an ideal, but, again, where is any challenge to excel?

And that's desirable? Sounds like the perfect hell, to me. I am appalled you think a society of no creativity is a good thing. "Lasciate ogne speranza voi ch'intrate." - Dante [abandon hope, all ye who enter here.]

YES!!! Conflict of ideas fosters new ideas. It fosters creativity. The U.S. Patent Office, as a joke, declared in 1899 that as of 1900, the office would close, because all the inventions that could be made had been made. A joke, yes, but there's your proposed ideal society. Boring is only one description. Come on, man! Use your moniker better than that.

What's the probability that if we are a hive-minded society, we become of one mind in that no one has motivation to have an original idea? No innovation. No challenges. No struggle. Sounds an awful lot like Tower of Babel mentality. Nope. Not my idea of an improved society. And that is precisely the end result of Marxism. No thank you. We are endowed with individual thought for good reason. Let's not mess with that. What's wrong with conflict, as long as it remains conflict of differing ideas, without someone thinking that their idea is better than another's, and is willing to prove it by physical force, which usually means it was not such a great idea. 

I have an old, but abandoned idea for presidential debates. They used to be done like this a century, two centuries ago, but not since the coming of age of media and television. It's very simple: Lose the moderator[s]. It is obvious to me, and has been for several election cycles [I've seen a few]. The moderator, typically being a media type, is becoming unashamedly biased. In the first Trump/Biden debate, Trump recognized that he was in a 2-on-1 debate. I know a little bit about that. Chris Wallace was a disgrace. Savannah Guthrie wasn't much better. It is the evidence of weakness on the heavy side, that the added weight is deemed necessary, and in this particular case, badly needed by that side. 

A secondary reason: why do moderators think they have to pontificate a question with background information. Just ask the bloody question! They take up as much time as the debate participants. These people act like they've never been on TV before, and want all the time. Better to just eliminate the problem instead of making them shut-up but for a posed question without the fluff. Instead, let the participants ask questions of each other, any subject, no prior notice to either one. That way, they are truly held to thinking on their feet; the way it should. That's how negotiation with other world leaders goes, why not in their pre-election debates.

check out my new topic in technology section.

I'm wondering if inanimate objects should express evolution as do living organisms. The recent Twitter kerfuffle has prompted me to wonder if the powder-blue, sweety-tweety-bird image is entirely appropriate, given its new-found predatory nature. Shouldn't it evolve claws and a hooked beak?

Well, there is that, of course, but I was targeting a nine-year-old mentality, where I believe most climate alarmists reside. Assuming, of course, any nine-year-olds out there know what an analog clock is.

That's about right. Funny thing, I don't see a constitutional basis for federal control of education. But then, I don't see the constitutional justification for a lot of things Congress does instead f what they are specifically mandated to do. There's only 17 of them [Article I, section 8], but they do damn little with any of them. Rs are also at fault in this realm.

Not my model. Personally, my entire adult life has been a model of earning money,. making my money work for me, and donating a percentage of it to charity, over and over again. Currently, 22% of my annual income is donated, and I increase the percentage as my increase grows. But I not only give a fish; I teach to fish. And, no. My donation is not to the state, which is a poor processor of random funds. I give to direct, private industry charities. The government does not know how to, and should not be the middleman of charitable donation. Stop depending on it. It's not their job. Show me where it is mandated to them.

"Climate Change" has become a cultural mantra that has turned into a product as a questionable, essential, subject to breakdown, and just the greatest thing around since peanut butter as the internal combustion engine automobile. First, it must be a constant, or the whole idea is something like trying to understand what infinity means. Thus, we have developed the idea that climate change can be solved only by reaching a desired singular, ideal climate that fluctuates only within a low, single-digit range of temperature, and a low, single-percentage range of atmospheric content, and, forgetting that the Earth, even without a single human on it to cause aberrant fluctuation, has not one, but a multiple of "ideal" climates.

That said, the idea that climate change has become a taxable concept that is so akin to the idea of indulgences as a means to redeem humankind from sin, it is amazing that proponents of the idea rankle at it being called a religion. No one said this idea made sense, except those who espouse it. To me, that's religion, in a nutshell.

So, what is this marvelous solution to the question of the meaning of climate change? A clock. Not digital, because most of the digits involved in that model change too quickly to see them change; it's a blur. This image actually helps the idea: climate change is happening so precipitously quickly, it's a blur. That cannot be a good thing. No, my model is the analog clock. The fastest thing in that model is the second hand, and the slowest things, the digits, which don't move at all. That's kind of the point of the model. Think of the separate digits as the Earth, herself; a complete system whose moving parts are, in fact, observable over time, a questionable concept of its own, but we'll ignore that wrinkle. See, all systems have wrinkles, even CLIMATE CHANGE.

If your clock is large enough, we see the minute hand, the longer one, you know, move, advancing in little ratchet-moments through an entire minute. Watching the shorter hand, the hour hand, actually move is more difficult, but it clearly does move. There, boys and girls, is your erfect model of climate change. Some changes are relatively rapid. Like changing cloud formations. Some changes are observable, but happen too slowly to make a habit of focus only on that one thing. Like the sun rising at setting very day, and we note, eventually, that its rising and setting are somewhat synonymous with the passage of twelve hours on our clock; the complete single rotation of the hour hand, and that it does so twice in 24 hours. 

Such is the nature of climate change. It does so, slowly in some respects, more quickly in others. The point is, it is a cycle. It is not in stasis, even an ideal one. Man can effect, but is not the ultimate mover-shaker of the system. You, who espouse the precipitousness of change, just happen to take a five-minute segment of the whole cycle, and say, "See? It's changing!" And you act like Paul Revere. Well, buy a copper pot from him, and let him move on. He is a capitalist, after all, and his warning of impending war has some reason, but it's no reason to think we're doomed. Maybe we'll win the war, and, because we are defending hearth and home, we probably will.

Yes, but I'd suggest being careful about using Bo Burnham as your frontman. As Burnham said in response to a series of podcasts by Pete Holmes, another comedian, who expressed fear that Burnham, "always makes me feel like a fraud," Burnham replied, characteristically, "Oh, that's not true. My show is a complete fraud." Then you take him seriously at your peril. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect, but I am saying that it is the best economic system to feature the individual rather than the collective. The best individual will allow that his successful capitalism will always keep in mind the benefit he can be to the collective. Thereby, capitalism, as a construct of civilization, is a construct that allows an individual to do his best, but remember that he is not in it alone. It allows for generosity without limiting his own potential because it is the only system that has the approach that the money supply is not limited by a ceiling. Not every capitalist feels that way, and, I'll admit, that is a problem, but the problem is not due to the idea of capitalism, but only how some approach it.

Curious that the verbiage of the Iran Deal did not stipulate that, and, in fact, allowed it to occur.

Anyone who cannot take a joke. Why are you queued in that line?

So you want to run a fair, complete comparison of accomplishments, in the time-frame Trump has accomplished them; in literally 44 months. No, Biden doesn't get to use his 47 YEARS.

The failure of capitalism is not that people with no vision cannot remain in business when their product is no longer popular or needed, but that people like you do not have the vision to see beyond the failure to recognize innovation; the engine that drives capitalism. Just imagine if everyone who manufactured buggy whips just went out of business in disappointment that no one needed their product to start an automobile engine because they did not recognize the opportunity to re-fit their factory to manufacture an ignition system. The beauty of capitalism is the invention of innovation, the essence of which socialism has never understood. And that is why it ALWAYS fails. Show me a socialist system that has endured longer than 100 years. [Hint: there isn't one.] Further disappointing, the average socialist system lasts about 40 years before crumbling in the face of a system that has never defined what you bought from Oba'a; that there is a finite money supply. "There comes a time when you have made enough money." Who says? Him? the guy who never ran a business? Like Marx, by the way? Some mentor. No, he was, is, and will always be dead wrong. The only limitation is the belief that the money supply is finite. Argue for your limitations; they're yours.

I agree with your assessment of Oromagi, but, since I believe fossil fuel is a renewable energy [the earth just keeps making the stuff], if not alternative,  your proposed example would make an interesting debate.

Well, the 20 bucks is blown out of the water, but my Mac mouse has never seen a mousepad. In fact, none of the 3 Macs I've owned in my life needed mousepads.

What? Were you expecting Iraq to be made state #53, following D.C. and Puerto Rico? "Going... well" kind of depends on the objective of taking Baghdad in the first place, yeah? Wow, we'll get to the Oba'a 57 states pretty quick, huh? Not by anything he did, mind you. Did he do anything? At all? Yeah, he kept his promise to buy the kids a dog.

For an alleged history buff, you do an amazingly lackluster job of research. Buff, according to whom? Your sock puppet?

Hidin' Biden's campaign says a meeting between Burisma board adviser Vadym Pozharskyi and Biden was never on Biden's official calendar. Sure. I'll wager the meeting between Bill Clinton and Oba'a  AG Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac [to discuss their grandchildren, you'll recall]  was never on either's official calendar either, but it happened, anyway. Unfortunately, "official calendars" have a number of synonyms, but "diary" isn't one of them. The Biden campaign could have issued a number of different denials, like a flat-out denial that they never met, but, curiously, role out a denial that has lots of wiggle room for a cover-up.

All you who complain about Trump simply bought into the hype. I didn't, and I'm now taking that confidence to the bank. What did Oba'a/Biden ever do for you that has that kind of return? I know many of you are still in school, and haven't the faintest idea what the real world is. Offered a free education, you're hooked, lined and sinkered. I paid for mine, thanks. So can you.

No, Biden is so far removed from Trump, even Oba'a has been missing in action for Biden, even after reluctantly endorsing him. Who are this guys friends? Of convenience, only.

Besides, under Trump policies, I'm doing just fine, after barely breaking even with 8 sets with Oba'a. He told me I don't build anything, which was a big surprise to my wife. "Is this a mirage," she asked?

United? Yes, Beijing does have an enormous thumb under which 1.4B fit snuggy-buggy. That kind of unity, I can do without. Ever been there? I'd reserve judgment until you have. 

Yes, but Oba'a is ancient history.

You really want to vote for Hidin’ Biden?
 
He told Ukraine if they didn’t fire their prosecutor, son-of-a-bitch, he wouldn’t release $1B in aid.
He said he’s running for Senate.
He told you if you don’t vote for him, you ain’t black.
He said unlike the Hispanic community, the black community is not diverse.
He said Trump’s China and Europe travel bans were xenophobic.
“I will beat Joe Biden.” [The media tried to excuse this by claiming he said [“I will be Joe Biden.” But that’s worse. Who is he now if he’s not Joe Biden?]
He said Trump’s travel bans were a good idea.
He said he has hairy legs. [tmi]
He likes kids running their hands up and down his legs. [TMI!]
He wants to sniff your hair. [TTTMMMIII!!!]
Joe said you should not vote for him.
He applauded the Harris administration.
He said he’s running for the senate. [A second time.]
“I pledge allegiance to United States America, one nation, indivis… under God… for real…”
“Two million… twenty… two hundred thousand…”
He said that when one person sneezes, it travels throughout the aircraft, and, “that’s me.” [What is he? A snot cloud? He said it, not me.]
He said if you do everything right, there’s a 30% chance you’re still wrong. [Is that like truth over facts?]
“Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see you.” [said to Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair]
Have you been to a 7-11 lately? Just asking because Joe told you who you would encounter.
“Am I doing this again? My memory is not as good as Chief Justice Roberts.” [Even Oba’a poked him for that one.]
 
Okay, go register your vote for this fool.

To be a racist, Trump would not need to express it; plenty of closet racists out there, but virtually all of them, sooner, or later, cannot help the open expression, such as "If you don't vote for me, you ain't black," or "the Hispanic community, unlike the black community, is diverse." Really? However, there are too many examples of Trump's open expressions of well-wishes for other races that go beyond words. For example, until Trump came along, the HBC's went begging for funding every year. Oba'a could have solved that in any one of his eight years, but did not. Trump has privately benefitted many individuals because he has a compassionate heart; more so than his father. These charitable acts have too much documentation to ignore.

It appears you're attempting to blur the line between law and morality. The Torah is a volume of law, not morality. As you said, it is the "day-to-day," one day of which was to be treated differently than the others; a day to consider the law of God. The law is specific. Morality varies. Morality is much closer to theistic religion than to law. One cannot blend moral and legal. Actually, one can; it is limited to a judge, who first settles law, and if it has been broken, and then settles punishment for lawbreaking, where the morality of mercy plays a hand. But mercy does not negate the law; it has been broken, which the judge acknowledges. But the judge is in a position to determine case-by-case disposition, aqnd may find that a severe punishment does not fit the crime and its motivation, and may, therefore, apply mercy. Mere lawyers do not have that flexibility.

Wish all you wish. As you dismiss puffery, it is deflected back at you. Lack of scientific method is no justification you recognize.

I have no problem with the concept of polling, if only polling agencies would do it correctly. I've noted just six issues with polling that prevent it from being done correctly. You are well aware of the result: garbage in, garbage out. Let them do it correctly, or don't bother. It's like climate "science," which depends on accurate measurement as well. Tell me, genius, how you get accurate measurement worldwide when your measurement equipment is all different, of differing measurement accuracy, and not calibrated to the same standard, if calibrated at all. Am I wrong that these issues are important? Or, do you just ignore the problems and accept the results, anyway. That's not science, my friend, that's seat-of-the-pants guess work. Go ahead; tell me I'm wrong. Just know that, relative to such measurement, I am a retired professional with 40 years of a doctorate and working experience in over 30 countries. You have...?

I'm reading your paper with great interest. 

Here's the fake:

1. Current political polling is mostly directed to "registered voters," 49% of whom did not bother to vote in 2016, and similar figures in elections going back 20 years and more. That 49% figure into polling results, meaning that people with no opinion when it comes to voting express voting opinions. Flaw #1.

2. Current polling typically uses 1,000 samples, sometimes less, when the science says that in a population of 250M people [the number of registered voters] you need a sample size minimum of 2,401 respondents.  Insufficient samples means skewed and inaccurate results.

3. Sample size is tied to margin of error [moe], which is typically indicated at ±3% [a total spread of 6%], which is painfully excessive when accuracy is critical. Often the moe exceeds ±3%. For best accuracy, the moe must be ±2%. Tied to this is the the general failure of readers of polls to take the moe factor into account, concentrating on just the raw data result, such as that one candidate has a 5% advantage in the raw result, but ignoring that there is a ±3% moe, meaning that there is a total spread of potential error of 6%, which exceeds the 5% noted separation. Therefore, statistically, the two candidates are really in a statistical dead heat.

4. Polling should limit the poll to 10 questions. Current political polling asks 40 - 50 questions. After 10 questions, those polled begin to lose interest, and the accuracy of their answers plummets. That's just the way it is. People will say anything just to be rid of the poll they have been sucked into participation. Human behavior.

5. How questions are structured is a science all its own, with questions having the danger of expressing bias, and receiving a biased answer. This bias can be innocently applied by poor question structure, or it can be by design to illicit a desired biased answer.

6. When polling knows it has a varied sample group, such as addressing Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, the polling must assure they have an equal number of respondents in each category, or their results will be skewed. A review of current political polls indicates that the typical poll has a majority bias toward Democrat respondents, therefore skewing the results to a Democrat-based conclusion. Sometimes, this sample group bias advantages Democrats by up to 15%. Why do you think your polls indicate Trump will lose, and should have lost in 2016?

Any questions why political polls are inaccurate?