|
Post by rabid on Sept 25, 2018 6:20:44 GMT -7
Hitchen's flaw (likely born of enebriation) is violating his own definition. I opened the jar but I'm not spoon feeding anyone. His opponent was too dumb to pick it up. I would have embarrassed his drunken ass royally in this exchange.
"evidence proves, to the E9 decimal place"
Cite a peer reviewed source for this specific number.
Hitchens may not the the only one hitting the sauce. Creatio ex nihilo cannot disprove creatio ex nihilo. That should be obvious. That and Until you or Lawrence Krausse can stand another universe you are both full of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2018 8:45:10 GMT -7
Since we're on the topic of Conservatives and Liberals (the preferred descriptor is "Progressive"), I've been watching " Space Time" on PBS's YouTube channel. Interesting stuff. I watch it. I like it. I learn from it. I am left secure in the knowledge that there are people who should be science-types, and a whole lot more who should stick to more traditional vocations. I've also learned that the U.S. Military is pretty sure that 10% of the population is simply not trainable - which might throw a wrench in the assertion that everyone should pursue a career in science. Probably philosophy is a good choice for these unfortunate people since no one will ever know if they are actually any good at it. Scientists, on the other hand, are always correct until proven wrong (by other scientists). I have it on good authority that these are totally different things. I'm sure someone will flame me for stating it like that, but it's true. The difference between these two schools of thought (Philosophy and Science) is in the post and is self-explanatory so leave the torches and pitchforks at home.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Sept 25, 2018 17:24:56 GMT -7
But, what about the stone knives and bearskins?
I know that a fair percentage of humanity simply doesn't have the necessary -ability- to learn very complex concepts. It's not that they are actually stupid but, simply lack the needed discipline and focus to handle some of the heavy lifting in mathematics and science (lack of interest doesn't help there either).
I DO believe that everyone should be exposed to science concepts, whether they like it or not. Anything that broadens the mind is beneficial to everyone.
I have no doubt that the military is quite correct that some people simply aren't trainable. Those same people would NOT make it as Philosophers either. Despite what some think, Philosophy does require a fair bit o' intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Sept 27, 2018 4:18:57 GMT -7
I'm not mad, on the contrary debating with binary thinkers is always fun. Some folks think the hitch can do no wrong and I guess in the end that's none of my business.
Philosophy and science again...I appreciate the insight but I have cause to think differently. I've debated this at length so I'll summarize instead of arguing it fully. The problem is they aren't 2 "separate" schools of thought. Einstein credits Schopenhauer and conversely Lawrence Krausse can't explain his concepts to the layman, while ironically mocking philosophical thinking. Carlos Rovelli among others, values philosophy's historic contributions to science. To be brief Science is excellent, data is important, but so what if it can't tell us what the data means about the world? Without philosophical contemplation the abstract sciences in particular are meaningless. Science is "what happens", philosophy is "why should I care?"
Also the 10% untrainable thing...are you all watching Jordan Peterson? If so be careful, for all his knowledge something about that that guy ain't right.
Anyway, whose watching this Brett Kavanaugh fiasco? Who'd have thought such a prolific rapist could have kept it under wraps for so long?
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Sept 27, 2018 7:57:09 GMT -7
If you are talking about Jordan Peterson the Clinical Psychologist - well, you already know what's wrong there (Psychiatrists are often crazier than their patients).
The whole madness surrounding Brett Kavanaugh is...I don't know what to think there. Maybe he was a very perverted twit when he was younger. It's not that odd for teens/young adults to do some very stupid things and then grow out of it. It has to do with how the brain develops and explains some of the "immortality" B.S. that goes on in that age group (I'm sure NONE of US ever did anything stupid during OUR teens...oh no...).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2018 11:19:32 GMT -7
Yup - a little Science vs Philosophy. Science proves I'm insignificant, while Philosophy helps me live with that knowledge Yup. I watched Jordan Peterson. He's... unusual... but I did verify that the US military has a prohibition against the enlistment of persons having an IQ of 81 or less (about 10% of the population).
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Sept 27, 2018 16:54:46 GMT -7
The US military did try recruiting from those currently prohibited with the New Standards Men (FY67 to FY72). Proved trainable but suffered double the casualty rate of the standard recruiting cohort.
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Sept 27, 2018 18:54:02 GMT -7
Hitch could certainly do wrong, but that hasn't been demonstrated yet, least of all his so-called 'inconsistency'. If you make a charge it's up to you to prove it. Otherwise, you're just bullshitting. Universe from nothing: arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdfE9th decimal place: arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0206254 Universe is FLAT, has ZERO total energy, comes from nothing. But deniers gotta wallow in their own ignorance, making declarations with no proof provided. For others untutored in Science, consider if it's more likely Einstein & Krauss are correct about the Universe, or a philosopher? Not alot of adults (and zero philosophers,) are willing to spend their free time learning Physics, Maths and Astronomy to prove that for themselves, so - make a decision on what's more likely based upon your confidence, then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 8:44:05 GMT -7
God told me the Universe was round, but that the Earth was flat, and I believed him.
Y'ever think that someone might be disagreeing with you just to jerk your chain and get a good laugh from your over-the-top replies?
I've been going back over old threads, and there is a pretty clear pattern. You just can't be as smart and educated as you claim to be and not see that you are being messed with.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Sept 28, 2018 15:16:56 GMT -7
The US military did try recruiting from those currently prohibited with the New Standards Men (FY67 to FY72). Proved trainable but suffered double the casualty rate of the standard recruiting cohort. This is true, I just haven't heard this topic discussed lately outside of the Jordan B Peterson fans. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Unfortunately not everyone can be the person they might wish to be, if they could wish at all. Despite that I hold to believing in one's own unlimited potential despite the odds against. It just seems healthier. I had a whole post on it but thought better of it so took it down. Sorry if anyone was going to reply.
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Sept 29, 2018 6:55:54 GMT -7
Well, there are alot of stupid people southward. If I can dispel some of the ingrained ignorance by showing stupid statements for what they are, then I will absolutely do so. I am honest and straightforward just as Science is, and if others are not it doesn't matter to me; I sure don't live my life by their standards! Others who think they're "messing" with me are the ones who actually look stupid, mostly as a result of the things they say. This is aside from the fact that by attempting their "messing" they are also being dishonest and fake. Their reputation will be their legacy. I wouldn't have mine any other way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 8:16:45 GMT -7
Interesting... I posted something specifically intended to get an amusing response, and I got one. In another thread thescreamingswede asked rabid , Gorn , and @ironnerd (me) to stop this sort of thing. rabid and @ironnerd agreed to do so. Gorn did not.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Sept 29, 2018 15:40:11 GMT -7
Eh I don't have to talk about it. But to clarify it's not trolling exactly. I'm not poking to "get a rise". I find the topic entertaining.. Besides people can learn even from contentious debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 15:44:59 GMT -7
I did it because I found his over-the-top ueber-righteous posts amusing, and it's really easy to evoke them.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Sept 29, 2018 17:57:23 GMT -7
Ok, intentionally provoking another forum member is not acceptable. Stop it now or I will have to take action. I don't want to but I will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 19:11:09 GMT -7
Ok, intentionally provoking another forum member is not acceptable. Stop it now or I will have to take action. I don't want to but I will.
On a side note. I know I'm not a moderator, but I would like to ask Ironnerd, Rabid, and you Gorn to please, PLEASE, refrain from your usual god vs science stuff. I like to read what you guys write about; the banter about the game, but when it degenerates into a theological debate, it is a turn off. theSwede i can do that for you Swede, no problem. In this case I was just pulling his leg. I believe I can do that as well thescreamingswede . That's 2/3 of the problem. Maybe it can be unanimous. As I said before, don't post bullshit, and I won't expose it for what it is. I don't back down to bullshit. Those two love to fantasize they're manipulating in some way, but if they do it through demonstrably bullshit statements (there was even a member that illustrated his fantasies in comic form), then they are where the ridicule lies. No provocation required. What else ya got? Maybe a " No Joking" policy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2018 9:33:58 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Oct 6, 2018 20:49:06 GMT -7
"Evoking" truth by posting bullshit is hardly a victory. Particularly if it's ludicrous bullshit. Same thing making charges and failing to support them. That kind of behavior is much more represented by Republicans (i.e. Conservatives in North America), illustrated particularly well by Trump.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Oct 6, 2018 21:39:10 GMT -7
Look up: I THINK WE HAVE A SNOWFLAKE MELTING!!!! Look at it again, how many of those Dems could have passed the background checks and looks in the past of our newest Justice. NOT ANY!!!
Get over it SNOWFLAKES!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Oct 7, 2018 9:10:53 GMT -7
Yet it's hilarious how conservative republicans cry the moment their veteran support programs, funding and pensions are slashed by republican principles.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 7, 2018 11:21:50 GMT -7
If conservatives dropped social conservatism they would be unstoppable. Socially they haven't managed to "conserve" anything they claim to conserve. But fiscal policy and smaller government are laudable goals.
For me this is a spectator sport (I'm way too cynical to vote) but right now the left looks unhinged and on the verge of collapse.
As for trump, he just showed 2 things.. 1. He can outsmart the opposition by giving them exactly what they claim to want. 2. He showed how much change he has made in the F.B.I.
Who wants to take odds on mueller coming up with jack diddly squat?
Prediction: mueller comes out the week before November with a misleading report, it gets debunked but damage is done. This further galvanizes trump's base to "save" him, Democrats lose since among the general public the mueller probe has zero credibility.
Prediction: Feinstein was crestfallen after viewing the FBI report. Why do you think she abruptly pivoted to "temperament"?(she isn't dumb, that's why.) Democrats will cry for it to be made public now, followed by outrage when trump makes it public.
It's a puppet show at this point. You can see their hands.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 7, 2018 11:45:16 GMT -7
If conservatives dropped social conservatism they would be unstoppable. Socially they haven't managed to "conserve" anything they claim to conserve. But fiscal policy and smaller government are laudable goals. Republicans do not care about fiscal responsibility and smaller government. What they really care about is reducing government that they don't like and reducing government spending on things they don't like. Republicans are happy to spend, spend, spend money for things they want. Trumps budget has a trillion dollar deficit and will inflate to 1.5 trillion by 2028 assuming no changes from existing taxes and spending and no recessions. Any recessions could drive the annual deficit close to 2 trillion.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 7, 2018 11:49:35 GMT -7
I have to agree with you. I've said before at least Democrats are truth in advertising. Democrats promise bigger government and bloated entitlement spending, and that's what they deliver.
But on the face of it I like how smaller government sounds. I think most republican voters overlook that hipocrisy on purpose.
Before trump when was the last time republicans actually reduced the deficit or the influence of government? (This is probably a big reason why so many republicans hate him...he hurts the bottom line with corporate cronyism).
Edit: but with trump..IF he fixes the US trade deficit, his budget deficit will be offset by a broader tax base. Give him 4 more years to see if he is right.
Like I said, too cynical to vote.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 7, 2018 11:55:57 GMT -7
Smaller government is not specific enough a term. Whether or not I want smaller government depends on what you mean by smaller. I think the U.S. government is bloated and inefficient. On that metric I would support a smaller more efficient government. On the other hand there are things that our government does not do that I think it should. So in that arena my stance would typically be seen as supporting a larger government.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 7, 2018 12:16:27 GMT -7
What things do you think it should do that it doesn't?
|
|