Total posts: 8,696
If you really want to make the case you probably have to expand your data sets .
Here'a a pretty good chart on Wikipedia that let's you compare gun ownership rates and gun homicide rates in 2015 and 2019. While there does seem to be some correlation it is hardly black and white. I assume a similar breakdown by county would show much higher rates of correlation.
Created:
January 8, 2019
Is your Wikipedia broken?
That is more recently than I thought. It's pretty hard to give all the credit to a guy on his first year, and his second and third year were messed up. You are going to have a hard time making any legit comparison, I think.
Created:
“Florida has more homicides than liberal, gun restricted SF. How can this be?”DeSantis has a terrible record on homicide, the most significant type of crime - having a higher homicide rate than SF. A city he has described as “catastrophic”.
Fine. Now- is there any evidence from before the Pandemic that supports this claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well, at least you can't claim that you weren't an entirely willful participant in your own misinformation.
The claim was made by Viktor Shokin, not lawyers.
- Shokin starts: " I make this statement at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash ("DF"), for use in legal proceedings in Austria."\
FIrtash is a Mob Godfather- Putin's man in Kyiv. Why would any honest Prosecutor freely claim to be acting at the request of one of the most famous criminals in his home town?
- Why are those same two lawyers working for Giuliani? Because Putin and Trump both want dirt on Biden. This is two weeks after the Trump-Zelensky whistleblower made his accusations. This is just over two weeks before Trump's first impeachment. Trump is tweeting and talking about Hunter Biden every day at this point. Why wouldn't any honest lawyer working for Trump stay well the fuck away from any lawyers working for Russian mobsters in Kyiv- wouldn't that be the last thing Trump needs?
A couple of weeks later, just as the impeachment trial begins, Solomon is writing articles in the hill quoting Shokin but neglecting to disclose that the lawyers mentioned in the first sentence are also Giuliani's lawyers and are also his lawyers for many years. Why would he disguise this essential fact except to make Giuliani's manufactured claim seem more credible?
In any case, this source is compromised. People working for both Trump and Putin are obviously not objective sources for discovering whether Shokin was honestly investigating Biden when claimed. The fact that Zelensky's investigation and Shokin's co-workers say that he had dropped Burisma entirely by that time seem far more credible than some testimony manufactured by Giuliani years later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Then these dumb asses on The Five today were saying things like "Why weren't his lawyers allowed to see what was going on?" Oh you mean they weren't allowed to preside over the collection of top secret documents they have no security clearance for?
I heard Trump's lawyer say today that Trump was permitted to watch the whole proceeding on closed circuit television but she hasn't talked to Trump to discover how much he watched.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Bla bla bla, "we" you speak only for yourself
Doubtful. I assume anybody interested in the truth prefers Bloomberg to anonymous as a source of factual claim. Anonymous claims are almost always anonymous for a fucked up reason.
Why would "we" accept the assertions of Karen Tramontano,
Because the editor at the mostly reliable "The Hill" tells us to. No editor with a reputation to maintain would report that there was no board of directors for Biden to have joined unless he confirmed that easily confirmable fact. Editors don't like to correct their contributors' false statements, even opinion articles and you can be confident that all four corrections here were more carefully researched than Solomon's claims.
So he made it long after the fact,
You are deliberately missing the point.
Obviously, the fact that the claim was made by lawyers working for Putin discredits the claim.
Obviously, the fact that the claim was made by lawyers working for Trump discredits the claim.
Obviously, the fact that the claim was made by lawyers working for the author discredits the claim.
The fact that those lawyers were working for all three simultaneously strongly suggests collusion between all three employers.
The fact that Solomon reported a claim when he obviously knew that it had been manufactured on behalf of Trump and/or Putin is scandalous.
The fact that Solomon did not disclose how proximate his interests lie to that collusion should discredit Solomon as a source of truth on any subject ever.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
-->@oromagi
- Not my claim to defend.
Oh you made a claim. You had a theory about the data and took exception. But you don’t want to do the work.
- False. I offered two fairly obvious tautologies
- Homicide data does not equal crime data
- 2020 was unrepresentative for homicide data
Unless you think you can show that homicide rates are the same thing as crime rates or that 2020 was a perfectly normal year for crime in America, then Balko's claim that this data informs us regarding DeSantis' performance stands disproved. If you can't show that homicide rates are the same thing as crime rates or that 2020 was a perfectly normal year for crime in America but still wish to show us that DeSantis' is weak on crime, the burden is yours to find more, hopefully more convincing, data.
If you can't show that homicide rates are the same thing as crime rates or that 2020 was a perfectly normal year for crime in America but still wish to show us that Florida has more crime per capita then San Francisco the burden is yours to find some other way to prove it.
That’s called being intellectually lazy, right?
Nope. Not by any rational standard. The ball is in your court to volley or fault.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Did you bother to comparing murder and crime rates in 2019 to support your theory or did you want someone else to do that for you?
- Not my claim to defend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
When was Hillary ever charged with a crime,
- No investigation ever found evidence that a crime had been comitted.
investigated for a crime
- I think there were 7 large scale investigations total and few little ones. All concluded that Clinton had deliberately violated security practices. If she was still Sec of State, thy probably would have recommended that she be fired, but none found any evidence that any crime had been committed.
or have her personal home raided by the FBI?
- Well that kind of raid on any citizen is only approved if investigators can show probable cause of a serious felony for which evidence would likely disappear. Since Hillary's server had already been moved to a raised floor environment (just down the street from me) two years before the investigation and investigators had full access from the start, its not likely any raid would have seemed necessary. There was a subpoena that Clinton complied with 100% so it seems likely that multiple investigation teams did walkthroughs of the Clinton's basements, at least. Such info would not likely be made public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Wow, I remmber the cover, but none of the story, even after reading wiki. Hope HBO does something with it. Farme may have got his ideas from Zelazny.
How about that assassin Tyrannosaurus Rex cybernetically controlled by the Maquis de Sade? Does that ring a bell?
Strangulena luring men to her lair in the bombed out ruins of Manhattan? No?
I read ' To Our Scattered Bodies Go ' first, and that was only the beginning of Riverboat series and the large mushrooms supplying stuff, and diving into river to die, only to be reborn.
The aliens' ultimate motivations are pretty astonishing.
Robert Dean Foster had couple of good books I liked also, but, Asimov was definitely top of my list, with Zelazny 2nd.
I've read Foster some. He wrote the novelization of Star Wars and then immediately wrote a sequel before the original movie came out. He was hoping Splinter of the Mind's Eye would get picked up for a sequel but Luke and Leia are all over each other in that one so even though it is a pretty good adventure, its not well remembered in the Canon.
My first love as youngerster was Doc Savage and I must have had 35 or so of those books. Then came Conan series, then Foundation trilogy. I reread Foundation some 10 or more years later.
I read a couple of early Doc Savages and all of Robert E. Howard's crazy early Conan shit- they were sort all over the place in terms of storytelling but still just core worldmaking for D&D and Heavy Metal Magazine. My early days as dungeonmaster were all about trying to give Hyperborean feel.
When will Foundation be a movie or series?????
Came out on Apple TV this spring! It gets decent reviews but it does not seem to have inspired much buzz, does it? There so many great works that it would be fun to bring to life but the results are so regularly disappointing that it is hard to get excited. I enjoyed The Expanse and I think GoT actually surpassed the author but most just make me sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why would we accept the assertions of an anonymous blog before Bloomberg's reporting, which is not anonymous and subject to layers of gatekeeping and factchecking?
Did you even read all those addendums and editor's corrections at the end of this opinion piece?
- Since Blue Star Strategies has never had a board of directors, Solomon is making shit up when he claims Biden served on that board
- Solomon failed to reveal that Shokin's 2019 statement was made at the request and in the presence of DiGenova & Toensing, two lawyers who were employed by Rudy Giuliani AND Russian Organized Crime Boss Dmitri FIrtash AND John Solomon himself at the time of the statement. Doesn't Solomon's direct connection to Trump and the Russian Mob disqualify him from expressing an objective opinion on Hunter Biden? Why didn't the author at least disclose these connections at the time of his writing except that he knew such info would discredit him as a reliable source?
- "The U.S., the European Union and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists pushed for the ouster of Shokin; the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Shokin in 2016. "
- After completing that full investigation that Zelensky promised Trump in 2019, Ukraine's Chief Prosecutor cleared both BIdens of any violation of Ukrainian law.
Created:
Posted in:
Why would we accept the assertions of an anonymous blog before Bloomberg's reporting, which is not anonymous and subject to layers of gatekeeping and factchecking?
Did you even read all those addendums and editor's corrections at the end of this opinion piece?
- Since Blue Star Strategies has never had a board of directors, Solomon is making shit up when he claims Biden served on that board
- Solomon failed to reveal that Shokin's 2019 statement was made at the request and in the presence of DiGenova & Toensing, two lawyers who were employed by Rudy Giuliani AND Russian Organized Crime Boss Dmitri FIrtash AND John Solomon himself. Doesn't Solomon's connection to Trump and the Russian Mob disqualify him from expressing an objective opinion on Hunter Biden? Why didn't the author at least disclose these connections at the time of his writing except to that he knew such info would discredit him as a reliable source?
- "The U.S., the European Union and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists pushed for the ouster of Shokin; the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Shokin in 2016. "
- After completing that full investigation that Zelensky promised Trump in 2019, Ukraine's Chief Prosecutor cleared both BIdens of any violation of Ukrainian law.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The sense I use the word is pretty traditional, classical even.
Classical debate emerged as performances in front of Greek assemblies and courts, the Roman Senate and courts, etc or practice for those venues. That is, traditional, classical debate ALWAYS ended with a vote or judgement, a winner and a loser. Live debate today- high school, college, Intelligence squared, etc always ends with a determination of winners and losers, usually the whole audience is polled. Logic may not be democratic but debate was and remains entirely, fundamentally democratic.
Debate is competitive. If it is not competitive than what you are thinking of is symposium, forum, roundtable discussions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
1} Yeah classic favorite trilogy, and I read the next two or three that continued the series and he authored. After he died, a couple of other more authors { Baer? } another dude tried to carry on, but those books were quite boring.
agree. So much sci-f works that way.
2} Roger Zelazny"s Nine Princes of Amber and Jack of Shadows were also favorites of mine, as well as,
Love Zelazny! I know HBO bought rights to "Roadmarks" last year.
3} some of Phillip Hose Farmers ..'To Our Scattered Bodies Go '..which led to the Riverboat series,
Mark Twain and Burton vs King John and Hermann Goering? Machine gun mounted Steamboats vs hang gliders? Cancer free smoking with Neanderthals? Travel by suicide? Marvelous.
4} the Piers Anthony triology.
I assume you mean Xanth. I enjoyed the first few but I guess I have a lower tolerance for pun-based magic than others (there are 47 books in that series now).
I like his Adept series and Immortals series but I wouldn't put Anthony on the same level of the others discussed.
Created:
I'll take two exceptions to this data:
- Homicide rates are not crime rates. There can be considerable discrepancies.
- 2020/21 data should be considered unrepresentative due to the Pandemic.
- For example, San Francisco did way, way more lockdowns and work from home than Florida generally. In fact, DeSantis overrode some Florida Health recommendations for lockdowns, didn't he? Obviously, when the streets are empty, the few people who are out are and about are less likely to come into conflict, more obvious to police, etc. and crimes like homicide are likely to be positively affected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
-->@oromagiFeels like reproach, being that DDO is gone. He is 10 years writing this bullshit. He debated it extensively on DDO and to wider audience. He'd have posts on his profile by dumbass kids treating him like some dog-fucking Jesus. He had a gallery of furry art. He's posted 50 weird as shit animal sexuality facts in his 300 posts here.This guy is fucking his dog.
I had a good friend who caught her uncle fucking his poodle in his study. She was supposed to just be a guest for few days but she blackmailed her uncle (a local judge) into 4 years tuition and rent provided that he never own another pet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Epoch Times is far below any acceptable standard for sourcing political info.
The Epoch Times is a newspaper written and edited by Falun Gong cult members behind a walled 400 acre complex in upstate New York. Members are rarely permitted to communicate with the outside, the may not have jobs or family or friends outside of the complex. Members may not use the internet or email. Sexual relations are arranged by leadership. Members are generally prohibited from seeking medical attention from outside.
Although Epoch Times reprint plenty of legit AP and Reuters reporting they are entirely unreliable in their own reporting (for example, no cult member would be allowed to interview Merrick Garland or member of DoJ for these stories).
The Epoch Times is an international, multi-language news media company in print and online. The Epoch Times was first published in New York in April 2000 (in Chinese only) and the online edition in August 2000. In 2003, The Epoch Times launched an online edition in English, printing as a newspaper in New York in 2004. The Epoch Times was founded by John Tang and a group of Chinese-American Falun Gong practitioners. The Epoch Times publishes in 21 languages in 35 countries across five continents. Their focus topics include sections for world and national news, op-eds, sports, entertainment, business, arts and culture, travel, and health.
On December 20, 2019, Facebook took down more than 600 accounts connected to The Epoch Times. According to an NBC News report, “The network was called ‘The BL’ and was run by Vietnamese users posing as Americans, using fake photos generated by algorithms to simulate real identities. The Epoch Media group, which pushes a variety of pro-Trump conspiracy theories, spent $9.5 million on ads to spread content through the now-suspended pages and groups.”
In review, The Epoch Times covers straight news reporting through journalists and low-biased syndication through the Associated Press and Reuters. However, when reporting on China, they do reflect a strong anti-communism bias. The Epoch Times also uses loaded language that favors the right, such as Why Media Organizations Can’t Let Go of the Fake Russia-Collusion Narrative.
Editorially, there is an extreme Pro-Trump bias. Almost all articles praise Trump or denigrate the left, such as these Democratic Party: A Broken Kaleidoscope? and Five Reasons Trump’s Celebration of America Was Epic Display of Patriotism. According to an NBC News report, the “outlet has spent more than $1.5 million on about 11,000 pro-Trump advertisements in the last six months (2020), according to data from Facebook’s advertising archive — more than any organization outside of the Trump campaign itself, and more than most Democratic presidential candidates have spent on their campaigns.”
In general, straight news reporting is sourced and mostly low-biased; however, op-eds 100% favor the right with some promoting conspiracy theories. During the Coronavirus outbreak and the 2020 Presidential election, they have promoted misinformation. See failed fact checks below.
Failed Fact Checks
- Jack Andraka, 15, came up with a “100 percent accurate” cancer-detection method: “168 times faster, 26,000 times less expensive, and 400 times more sensitive” than current methods. – False
- Dubious Posts Tie Political Families to Ukraine Work – False
- No, Yellowstone volcano’s eruption threat level did not increase in 2018 – False (Corrected)
- Concerned artificial intelligence researchers hurriedly abandoned an experimental chatbot program after realizing that the bots were inventing their own language. – False
- Did China’s Communist government create the novel coronavirus in a laboratory and release it into the world as a deadly bioweapon? – False
- President Donald Trump has 232 electoral votes; Joe Biden has 212, 226, or 227. – False
- COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is converted to DNA and enters the cell’s nucleus, so the vaccines can potentially change our DNA – Inaccurate
- “COVID Deaths Have Been Vastly Overcounted” – Inaccurate
- “Pfizer Knew About Immunosuppression”; “Fully Vaxxed Are More Likely to Die From COVID” – Inaccurate
Further, the Epoch Times frequently publishes pseudoscience news, such as Supernormal Abilities Developed Through Meditation: Dr. Dean Radin Discusses. They also publish false claims from Pseudoscience and anti-vaccination activist Joeseph Mercola who has a long track record of publishing misinformation. Finally, the above referenced NBC News report states, “In addition to claims that alien abductions are real and the “deep state engineered the drug epidemic,” the channel pushes the QAnon conspiracy theory, which falsely posits that the same “Spygate” cabal is a front for a global pedophile ring being taken down by Trump.”
Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as numerous failed fact checks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
You left out the part where you fuck your pets.This dude genuinely fucks his pets and this site and the last are littered with his weird posts about animals perception and enjoyment of sex. His dream of liberty is fucking his pets.I feel dirty and weird sharing the same website as this degenerate.
links?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Debating wackjobs is the only way to know you're not a wackjob because it turns out (and this is an inescapable historical fact) that entire societies can be wackjobs so living in an overton window guarantees absolutely nothing.If you're looking for people who disagree with you provided it's not any kind of disagreement that provokes an emotional reaction you're looking for a book club not debate.The only thing that frustrates me is when people don't know how to debate but black knight it anyway because they find "clashing" fun.
Same guy on Tuesday:
"for the record: I don't do debates with votes. Logic is not a democracy."
So when he's lecturing you about debating, let's be sure to note that Dream doesn't mean debating in any traditional sense of the word or in this website's sense of the word. He means just posting shit to the Forums with the exact same amount of rigor you have already used.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So far I am pretty disappointed
There are plenty of brilliant people but they mostly tend towards more reserved participation. Danielle, for example, might check in on Saturdays.
If you'll avoid users with more than 10K posts and the RELIGION forum, you'll probably do fine.
Also users with zero debates are a bit sus in my estimation (except Badger, Badger is okay he's just Irish is all).
Welcome to the site!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i'll keep that in mind the next time i speak with asimov
You should read him. He is the best.
Nightfall
I, Robot
Robot Series
Foundation Series
are all masterpieces of English literature in any genre.
Well-
I, Robot is maybe a little too reliant on dialogues to really be great literature. I have argued elsewhere on this site that the Will Smith movie does a grave disservice to Asimov by ignoring his narrative and replacing the female lead with Will Smith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
- Your premise was quickly disproved.
it takes almost zero rhetorical skill to claim something has been "disproved"it takes slightly more rhetorical skill to convince someone (other than yourself) that something has been "disproved"
true
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
- Your OP stated:
- (IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
- Your premise was quickly disproved.
THIS IS A CONDITIONAL STATEMENTIFF WE CAN'T AGREE ON THE FIRST STATEMENTTHEN OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T AGREE ON THE SECOND STATEMENT
true
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
and the PRIMARY definition is the first one listed (in dictionaries)
I know this was said before in the debate comments but the order of listing in most dictionaries depends on frequency of use.
When WIKTIONARY defines ATHEISM as
- (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
- (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
- (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
- (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).
that means that your preference comes third in terms of common usage.
When LEXICO and WEBSTER combine the first and third meanings, that brings usage to the top
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
your original assertion that logic is not reasonable
- Obviously false. I said that the difference between logic and reason is that logic describes a system, a methodology that informs Reason.
- It is irrational to infer "A is never B" from the statement "A is an element of the set AB"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi"A robot is logical but a robot is not reasonable."by using this quote to make your point, you're conflating "common sense" with "reason"you are doing this
Asimov disagrees.
Again, If I have to choose between you and Asimov to define any word, I am going with Asimov every time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
asimov is not the one true arbiter of language itself
No, just one of the all-time great masters.
If I have to choose between you and Asimov to define any word, I am going with Asimov every time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you specifically propose we disentangle "logic" from "reason"
why would you want to disentangle them?
As I said, "Logic describes a system, a methodology that informs Reason." What good is one without the other?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you and only you are pretending that the title of this thread is somehow magically "the (immutable) debate resolution"
- I strongly believe that arguments on a debate site should closely adhere to the original proposition as expressed in the title and/or OP. Shifting propositions is an easy way to never resolve the truth value of the original proposition or stand proved/disproved. That's the way debates work and it seems obvious that we should always use basic debate standards when we argue points on this site.
- Your OP stated:
- (IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
- Your premise was quickly disproved.
- Your OP clearly refutes your later claim "i was arguing the entire time for inclusion" or " has never been my intention for "lack of belief" to be used to the exclusion of all other descriptions."
- Recall Double's thesis statement in the debate that started all this:
- "The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god. The definition contrasts with Con's position that the definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of any gods."
- So even though there is more than one meaning of the word simply, you guys are clearly only defending the meaning that is synonymous with "merely"
- merely, just, purely, solely, only
- You are clearly deluded or deceptive when arguing months later, "Golly that's not what we trying to say at all"
- You can keep moving the goalposts all you want. The kick was nailed two months ago when you stopped standing by your OP.
when clearly your personal understanding of the term "merely" (and or "simply") as a synonym for "exclusively" is something i've never encountered before
- You certainly should know me well enough to know that I only rely on dictionary definitions of word, never personal understands.
three of the four dictionary examples use "lack of belief" or "absence of belief" as the PRIMARY definition
- Two months ago, I explained to you that there's no such thing as primary definition. There are strict definitions and broad definition and a broad definition must never replace the strictest (most semantically specific) meaning of any word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiAtheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. [WIKI]Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [LEXICO]Atheism: lack of belief in the existence of God or gods [OXFORD]Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [WEBSTER]And what was my reply the first time you made this point?a naked rush to declare victory
No. I carefully explained how none of those definition coincided with your definition that Atheism is "simply [merely, only, exclusively, etc] a lack of belief."
When you later agreed that Atheism means all of these definitions and more and definitely NOT that Atheism is "simply a lack of belief" the argument was over whether you have figured that out or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I said:
- Logic describes a system, a methodology that informs REASON.
Oxford said:
- [REASON] forms "judgments by a process of logic."
These statements are in agreement. What are you failing to understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiAs such, I think we might want to defer to el Maestro's word choice here as correct and appropriate.argumentum ad verecundiam
Argumentum ad Verecundiam fallacy (argument from inappropriate authority): an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside of the authority's special field of expertise.
Since I made a lot of effort to demonstrate that Asimov is one of the all time greatest authorities on the proper use of the word reason, your knee-jerk resort to claims of fallacy without understanding how that fallacy functions is silly and super fucking fallacious itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
rea·sonverb
Precisely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi"A robot is logical but a robot is not reasonable."you're conflating "common sense" with "reason"
I know you've been looking for an opportunity to use that word "conflating" ever since I pointed out to you earlier this week that you were conflating the word SEMANTICS with the notion of SEMANTIC ARGUMENT (and not really getting that right either).
Unfortunately for your triumphant moment of "J'accuse, hypocrite!," that's not my usage of the word REASON you are disagreeing with- that is Issac Asimov who, as I noted above, I was directly quoting.
If you did not know it already Isaac Asimov, in addition to being
- the greatest Science Fiction writer of all time, a major source of inspiration for Sci Fi culture- Star Wars Star Trek - really anything with galactic empires or robots in it,
- the guy who coined many popular scientific words like "robotics,"
- the most prolific author in human history with over 600 books published, etc
- Asimov was also a prolific author of scientific textbooks in both Russian and English and as as such
- has written multiple popular college textbooks about logic and reason in both Russian and English.
- Asimov was also particularly well known for the efficiency, intellect, and care of his word choices
- and also wrote several books on effective writing, particularly science writing.
As such, I think we might want to defer to el Maestro's word choice here as correct and appropriate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. [WIKI]Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [LEXICO]Atheism: lack of belief in the existence of God or gods [OXFORD]Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [WEBSTER]
And what was my reply the first time you made this point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You didn’t answer the question, that was the whole point of post 93. I went into painstaking detail to explain why.
I very much feel that I should not have to explain this to you. You asked if Richard Dawkins believes in God and I explained his thoughtful, nuanced, clearly heartfelt response to that question as best as I was able including direct quotes. You then picked apart Dawkins in a deeply unconvincing manner and demanded a yes or no reply from Dawkins. Since I am not Dawkins and do not represent him in any way and Dawkins clearly refuses to answer that question with a simple yes or no I demurred and referred you back to Dawkins entirely sufficient and satisfactory reply multiple and will continue to do every time you demand it.
But that’s cool, you can tell yourself whatever you like.
What's not cool is thinking if you just keep reposting the same shit over and over people won't realize your argument was long since disproved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I would contest the idea that the sermon on the mount isn’t logical
I'm open to correction and this seems as likely a topic as any to make that claim.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Let the honest observer try to reconcile:oromagi: PRO will show that a disturbing number of officials, from the god-damned President of the United States on down, were willing to claim fraud.oromagi: PRO will argue the consensus of the local, state, and Federal governments of the United States of America.
Unsurprisingly, Dreamof does not understand the concept of consensus
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
- Logic describes a system, a methodology that informs Reason.
- Logic is an important element of reason but hardly the whole of reasoning, logic does not consider priority or scale, scope or impact. As Asimov used to say, "A robot is logical but a robot is not reasonable."
- Infinity is a logical notation but not a truly comprehendible or provable idea outside of the logical system of mathematics.
- Pi, for example, is an irrational number because it cannot be expressed as the ratio between two real numbers. Because pi is irrational, if the diameter of circle is a real number, then the circumference of that circle can't be expressed as a real number, we've only proven that takes a string of at least 5 trillion numbers to approximate that value though reason tells us that a circle must have a specific length defined by some real number eventually.
The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.
- It is not logical to love unconditionally or surrender your material wealth or submit to God's providence because logic cannot quantify peace or dignity or suffering or sacrifice. Human values range far beyond the capacity of logical systems to describe. To invert Asimov, humans are better at reason than logic.
Created:
Posted in:
3RU7AL asked:
->@oromagibecause not all logic is reasonable.please explainInfinity is logical but not reasonable.no, no it is not logicalThe Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.please explain
Created:
Posted in:
In another TOPIC I argued:
- "but to the the extent that logic is always dangerous to tyrannies, pure logic doesn't enjoy the freedom of expression that only healthy democracies guarantee. Logic depends on democracy for validation and correction for public policy applications. Strictly logical decision-making is unsustainable in a democracy because not all logic is reasonable. Infinity is logical but not reasonable. The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable."
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagibecause not all logic is reasonable.please explainInfinity is logical but not reasonable. The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.please explain
That was the explanation.
Tell you what, we are so far off topic now I'll start a new TOPIC for you in philosophy.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't do debates with votes.
- I get it- debate requires a whole different level of sophistication than mere harangue
Logic is not a democracy.
- No- but to the the extent that logic is always dangerous to tyrannies, pure logic doesn't enjoy the freedom of expression that only healthy democracies guarantee. Logic depends on democracy for validation and correction for public policy applications. Strictly logical decision-making is unsustainable in a democracy because not all logic is reasonable. Infinity is logical but not reasonable. The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.
Pro will show that nobody with the authority to act acted in an official capacity as if it was stolen
- False. PRO will show that a disturbing number of officials, from the god-damned President of the United States on down, were willing to claim fraud. But then when the time for showing evidence came, every single sheepish one of them was so easily debunked and made foolish before the quiet sobriety of dozens of judges. Some lawyers were actually disbarred because their fraud was so manifest. The principle claimant's lawyers quickly swore under oath that no reasonable citizen would have believed their claims. As early as late November, Giuliani was advising Republicans that he had no evidence of any kind.
That if it was stolen or the Jews were mistreated the people who should have done something about it would necessarily have done something about it.
- Sorry, bud. I know MAGA feeds on feelings of persecution but trust me when I tell you that you are miscasting MAGA as the Jews of Europe, however thoroughly Trumpists are suited to pantomime a different role in any narrative involving Beer Hall Putsches and Kristallnachts.
Created:
PROPOSITION1:
Shall we request the creation of a new FORUM CATEGORY titled CONSPIRACY THEORIES ?
YES: badger, oro, Intel6, Barney, Ehyeh, christianm, Best.Korea, Castin, Yester, Alfresco, Stephen, FLRW, TWS, fivesix,Psheep,
15
NO: 3RU7AL, BearMan, thett3, Lemming, Earth, Kritikal, RM, BDP, Novice, Poly, Skep, Ram, Morn, CompNerd, Tej, David, Mharman
17
PROPOSITION2:
Shall we request the creation of a new FORUM CATEGORY titled HISTORY ?
YES :oro, Barney, BearMan, Ehyeh, christianm, Best.Korea, Castin, Kritikal, Yester, RM, Alfresco, Stephen, FLRW, TWS, BDP, Poly, Skep, Morn, CompNerd, fivesix, Psheep, Tej, David,
23
NO:intel6,3RU7AL, thett3, Lemming, Earth, Novice, Ram, Mharman
8
5 days left to VOTE!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
As evolution proceeds, Worm Man is being replaced by Intelligent Man.
Leto Atriedes II, the God-Emperor of Dune was a worm/man and he could see all possible futures.
Created:
Posted in:
DEMOCRATS CLOSE the GAP in TWO POST-ROE v. WADE SPECIAL ELECTIONS
Aaron Blake@WashPo
Two months ago, Republicans hailed the takeover of a Democratic seat in a South Texas special election as proof of their 2022 momentum. Ten days later, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and since then there have been more and more signs that this momentum might not be all it was cracked up to be.
That culminated Tuesday in Democrats over-performing in the second straight special election since Roe was overturned, in Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District. Similar to Nebraska’s 1st District just days after the court’s action, Republicans still held the conservative-leaning seat but by a smaller margin than they’d like and by a smaller margin than in 2020.
In Nebraska, the GOP won by six points in a district that Trump had carried by 15 in 2020. In Minnesota, the margin is currently four points in a district Trump won by 10.
These are hardly massive shifts, and these are merely two out of 435 districts. We shouldn’t oversell the results in one, two or even five districts as predictive. But those results don’t seem commensurate with an impending red wave in the 2022 midterms, which not along ago seemed like it was indeed building.
History suggests such special elections held so close to the next election can be revealing of what may come the next November — though not always.
Democrats held on to a GOP-leaning district in Arizona in June 2012 after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and went on to hold the presidency that November. In June 2014, a late special election in Florida showed Republicans significantly over-performing the 2012 presidential election results, shortly before they flipped the Senate. The story was similar in an Ohio special election in June 2016, shortly before Trump won the presidency. In 2018, the Democrats’ takeover of the House was preceded by another Ohio special election — in August — in which they very nearly picked off a district that had favored Trump by double-digits.
(These are single special elections, but this late in an election cycle, we generally don’t have many to compare. And when we do, there are sometimes factors that make them very difficult to read, including when they feature two candidates of the same party.)
Other late special elections have been less telling. In 2010, Democrats hailed their ability to hold a conservative-leaning district in western Pennsylvania in May, but they still got drubbed that November. And 2020 featured both a surprising GOP pickup in California in May and a big Democratic overperformance in Upstate New York the next month — the GOP won by just five points in a district Trump had carried by 25 — before Democrats reclaimed both the Senate and the presidency in November.
If there’s one encouraging thing for Democrats about these two post-Roe special elections — and whether they might tell us some larger dynamic — its in how closely they mirrored one another.
As The Washington Post’s Lenny Bronner noted, the data on both races show the Democrats over-performing in Democratic-leaning and generally more populous areas, suggesting their base was more mobilized, relative to Republicans.
Here’s how that looks:
The Republican congressman-elect in Minnesota, Brad Finstad, effectively matched Trump’s performance in rural, red counties. But he did significantly worse than Trump in more competitive and bluer areas. Democrat Jeff Ettinger was able to improve upon President Biden’s margins by enough in those areas to bring this district from a 10-point Republican one to a four-point Republican one.
There was some question after the Nebraska special election about precisely why Democrats had done better there. The seat was vacant after GOP congressman Jeff Fortenberry, was convicted on three felony counts and resigned. And history shows scandals can create some funky results in the ensuing special election (including perhaps in that California district in 2020). Maybe this wasn’t really about Roe; maybe it was for very local reasons.
But the outcomes in Minnesota and Nebraska — combined with their party’s generic ballot numbers improving of late — give Democrats some license to believe the fundamentals are getting better for them, because the results in both races were so similar despite all the different variables involved.
That doesn’t mean they’re gong to hold both the House and Senate come November; that’ll be very difficult, given how narrow their majorities are. And history suggests Democrats need to do better than merely drawing even on the generic ballot, which is about where they are now. Things also can and will change.
But over-performing in races three to four months before the general election is surely better than the alternative. And we’ll have a couple more special elections to examine in the coming weeks — both in Upstate New York on Aug. 23 — to help us evaluate the trends.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Since I didn't get any joy from my last opponent, I'd be happy to remake this ongoing debate for you
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
yeah, don't know much about CHAZ. Judging by arrest records and hospitalizations seems like it was mostly a bunch of teenaged white boys from the suburbs calling themselves anarchists, right? Boys that age are like that. That's probably the number one reason why civilizations have armies, because boys that age are like that.
Jan 6 was organized by the President of the United States to the perpetual heartache of every lover of freedom and liberty. Trump was the usurper with the 6 point plan to fuck the US Constitution in its bloody eye socket. You can make your excuses for him but ultimately he was the only one person in America with the power to make Jan 6 happen and the only one person that could have stopped it, stopped it any point he wanted, stopped it at will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Change of subject? That's cool, time to move on...
please, god. no.
So, since we're back into this...
2nd post: I was definitely done by POST#74 when I complained about endless repetition of the same arguments.
did you have any plans of responding to post 93?
same answer as the first two times you asked that question.
Created: