**** Elections thread *****

[spoonitnow]

It's not a case of making threats and not following up on them, or whatever. It's the case that some people, when they are angry, say stupid shit that they don't mean.

"I'm gonna kill you" is probably the most common example. While many people do make that threat seriously, the vast majority of the time it's hot air.

I assume this muppet who threatened to bomb the dude's house was just being a dick, rather than actually being a terrorist.

I'm not sure what alternative world you come from, but threatening to kill someone is a big deal. The definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims," and since this was over a vote that didn't go the way he wanted it to, it's easily under the umbrella of terrorism.

[OngBonga]

I'm not sure what alternative world you come from, but threatening to kill someone is a big deal. The definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims," and since this was over a vote that didn't go the way he wanted it to, it's easily under the umbrella of terrorism.

Ok, so some gobshite who uses stupid language is a terrorist, but USA and UK are not terrorists, despite the fact we're using violence and intimidation aginst the Syrian regime in an effort to enforce regime change.

I'm definitely in an alternative world to you.

[spoonitnow]

but USA and UK are not terrorists

Who said that?

[OngBonga]

Who said that?

Oh so we do agree on that then? That's good.

I'm confused how you could support the xenophobic rhetoric coming from Trump, if you agree that our foreign policy amounts to terrorism.

[JKDS]

If you flooded a country with smokers and then then rape rate went up over 1500%, then it would be reasonable to kick all smokers out of the country. Would you kick out some of the innocent smokers? Sure. But they did nothing to keep the other smokers from raping countless women, so fuck them.

No, it'd be completely unreasonable. First, two things happening doesn't mean one caused the other. But even if you could show this, denying a citizen the ability to live here is a huge deal. If we just decided to do something like this, we'd be eroding or eliminating so many of the fundamental principles that define us as a country and spitting on the graves of our ancestors.

Show me the statistic that says american muslims (or Syrian refugees) are so terrible. Last I checked, they account for a very small amount of deaths...something like 50 in the last 10 years. IIRC, that's with a sample of over 700,000 muslims.

We're also ignoring that muslims are productive members of our society and culture. That 1 bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch. We might as well kick all the blacks out to decrease poverty.

[OngBonga]

Muslims here tend to be more productive than locals.

They run the majority of the non-corporate grocery stores, newsagents and boozers.

And make us curry.

[spoonitnow]

Muslims here tend to be more productive than locals.

They run the majority of the non-corporate grocery stores, newsagents and boozers.

And make us curry.

That's because you people would rather sit on your ass and collect a check.

Oh so we do agree on that then? That's good.

I'm confused how you could support the xenophobic rhetoric coming from Trump, if you agree that our foreign policy amounts to terrorism.

Terrorism isn't inherently bad. It's just a tool.

But even if you could show this, denying a citizen the ability to live here is a huge deal.

LOL

[wufwugy]

It's probably fair to say I "hate" America, at least the nation state repsonsible for the imperialist foreign policy which I see in action today.

Whenever you hear people call America an empire, stop listening to the words that come out of their mouths, for they know not about empires nor America.

Also, if you were to intern everyone into forced labour camps with an IQ below 100, then you'd improve the economy.

It would not. It would be abysmal for the economy. Forced labor is just that unproductive.

[wufwugy]

Also, Cruz wants a 19 percent national sales tax. Fucking idiot.

If it was added to current taxes, it would be terrible. But if it's the only tax, it would improve the health of the economy and peoples' lives several times over. Cruz's plan is overall fantastic.

Consumption taxes are the least destructive of all taxes.

[wufwugy]

No, it'd be completely unreasonable.

Yep. It goes against two of the key principles of a free society, that guilt is not assumed and that people are responsible for their own actions.

That said, we've gone way over the top is not using or discrimination facilities. Profiling is a good thing. It's highly productive, it's a philosophy we use for everything else, and it doesn't violate civil liberties.

[OngBonga]

Whenever you hear people call America an empire, stop listening to the words that come out of their mouths, for they know not about empires nor America.

noun: imperialism

a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.

[OngBonga]

It would not. It would be abysmal for the economy. Forced labor is just that unproductive.

Yeah probably, I didn't actually think about this for more than a second or two, I was just talking shit in rebuttal to spoon. There's a vague point there somewhere, even if it's not entirely accurate.

[JKDS]

Laugh away, but if you think people go ape shit when we threaten their guns, imagine if we threatened their homes.

@wuf: sure, profiling can be good. But you gotta make sure it's actually useful and not needless discrimination. Pulling every black person over and searching them just because there are lots of black people in prison is not effective profiling. However, keeping track of people who have friends/family in known terrorist groups is. Watching out for gang members is.

I know what's coming. "Look at their holy book, these guys are crazy wackjobs". No. Some are, yes. But that's how non Christians see the WBC. There are people who take religious views to absurd extremes, but that does not represent the whole. I read somewhere that 90% of American muslims strongly believe in women's rights, and support them getting careers and education and not wearing their hijab (or whatever it's called).

Should we vet ppl coming in? Of course. And we do.

[wufwugy]

noun: imperialism

a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.

the definition has undergone some rewriting, probably for the political purpose of making modern US look like an empire.

even then, going with this definition, the US still isn't imperial (at least not by much). it's not trying to extend its power, at least not in an imperial sense. the last time it did that was the aftermath of ww2.

in fact the US's current foreign policy is anti-imperial. under obama, it has been lessening its power at a quickened pace. under bush (and the truman doctrine), the US's foreign policy was never about expanding influence, but about protecting security interests that everybody has relied upon for many decades. it can be said that one of the reasons the iraq war failed was because the bush administration was so anti-imperial in its efforts. it took no power for itself, and an unintended consequence of doing so was that iraq would fall into less capable hands.

[wufwugy]

well the writing is about as on the wall as it's going to get at this point. the nominee will be rubio.

[wufwugy]

@wuf: sure, profiling can be good. But you gotta make sure it's actually useful and not needless discrimination. Pulling every black person over and searching them just because there are lots of black people in prison is not effective profiling.

it not being effective profiling is why it wouldn't be an adopted method.

still, problems arise from governments profiling, not because they're profiling, but because they're governments and they have undue power over people. a cop in the security monopoly can fuck over people very effectively, but an employee in a security market couldn't so easily.

[wufwugy]

it should also be noted the not profiling creates more bad things. when policy is to search every grandma at the airport as much as every jihadi-profile person, time and energy is wasted on the worthless examination of grandmas, which detracts from the time and energy put into potential jihadis.

[wufwugy]

young white men are one of the groups that should be profiled for terrorism more than others, fwiw

[JKDS]

it not being effective profiling is why it wouldn't be an adopted method.

still, problems arise from governments profiling, not because they're profiling, but because they're governments and they have undue power over people. a cop in the security monopoly can fuck over people very effectively, but an employee in a security market couldn't so easily.

Idk, I feel like bouncers and private security fuck up and over pretty regularly.

And by feel, I mean I've read enough cases about a guard doing dumb shit and someone dying or being injured because of it.

[wufwugy]

Idk, I feel like bouncers and private security fuck up and over pretty regularly.

And by feel, I mean I've read enough cases about a guard doing dumb shit and someone dying or being injured because of it.

i was referring to institutional effects. racist cops can get away with shit to a degree that racist employees cannot. this is one reason why the main issues people have with profiling are in fields where the government has a monopoly. profiling is a net positive in markets (it's used all the time in every field), but monopolies are so conducive to oppressive institutional policies that profiling as a concept looks terrible when governments are involved.

[wufwugy]

people go ape shit when we threaten their guns

as they should.

it's ironic that the crowd that thinks the government should have all the guns is also the crowd that highlights how terrible all the abuse from government officials with guns is. meanwhile, citizen firearm ownership does not correlate that well with increasing violence, but it does correlate well with decreasing violence.

[JKDS]

i was referring to institutional effects. racist cops can get away with shit to a degree that racist employees cannot. this is one reason why the main issues people have with profiling are in fields where the government has a monopoly. profiling is a net positive in markets (it's used all the time in every field), but monopolies are so conducive to oppressive institutional policies that profiling as a concept looks terrible when governments are involved.

Nah, the government is actually more scrutinized. In addition to title 7 that applies to all employers, government agencies must also abide by the 14th amendment. That's just legal scrutinty though. They're also obv more politically scrutinized and that includes 24/7 constant news footage whenever they fuck up.

But the reason people only have issues with government profiling is because that's the only profiling they're aware of. Go walk down the street and ask someone what profiling means, and most (if not all) will tell you it's police stuff

[wufwugy]

Nah, the government is actually more scrutinized. In addition to title 7 that applies to all employers, government agencies must also abide by the 14th amendment. That's just legal scrutinty though. They're also obv more politically scrutinized and that includes 24/7 constant news footage whenever they fuck up.

they only appear to be more scrutinized because there are a lot of laws about it and whenever a big story comes up, there's a ton of scrutiny that follows. contrast this to the markets, where the scrutiny isn't highlighted because we rarely get to a place of problematic behavior in the first place. the hardest thing in the world is to not get fired without question if your racism comes out at your job. this level of deterrence of negative profiling is tough to come by in monopolies.

But the reason people only have issues with government profiling is because that's the only profiling they're aware of. Go walk down the street and ask someone what profiling means, and most (if not all) will tell you it's police stuff

and why is this the only profiling they're aware of and have a problem with? profiling is prolific among everybody everywhere, among every level of dynamic thing. yet it only seems to be a problem when the government is involved, regardless of what that thing is. this is what it looks like when the government is the problem, not a specific industry.

[JKDS]

Nah. There's tons of problematic behavior. Look at at-will employment. Half the reason people get fired over stupid shit is because they're allowed to be. Companies are permitted to do so, and do in fact do so by an overwhelming margin. Why bother risking bad publicity when you can just fire them?

What else. BP oil spill, in fact any time a company has done something to justify having an EPA. The Jungle. Ecoli scares at taco bell. The shop that refused to make a gay wedding cake. The college that suspended kids for black face.

Both companies and governments are heavily scrutinized, but governments are still more so. Hell, half our laws are to facilitate such scrutiny! There is no reason to have public records or open courts but for challenging the gov.

As far as criminal profiling being the only thing they're aware of...it's got nothing to do with hate for the government's use of it. Some director somewhere makes a movie, a bunch of tv shows follow. You can't go two episodes into law and order or the wire without hearing about profiling. It's incredibly widespread, and often is attached specifically to racial profiling...something sjw are quick to spread animosity towards.

But, while this is the most common type of profiling and the most well known by far (due to media coverage, nothing more), I can think of one other type thay ppl may know. And that is advertising profiling. But as to your point that criminal profiling is the only one ppl hate... I disagree. Loads of people can't stand the idea of ads catering to them and learning and storing info about them.

[a500lbgorilla]

Just to jump over the conversation to share two things:

On Netflix, Best of Enemies is a great documentary about the Robert F Buckley Jr / Gore Vidal televised debates that forever changed how the news media covered politics.

Buckley was a masterful debater who was pushing a new form of combative conservatism via his publication The National Review and Vidal was a brilliant author who had just published a satire about the sexual exploration and exploits of an MTF transexual. They were both on the cutting edge of what both ends of the political spectrum would later become.

Through 10 televised debates shown after news coverage of the R/D conventions, they had forever changed how the news media would cover politics - no longer centrists who merely cemented the truth, the News would become the argumentative punditry we all know and love today.

On top of that, Cruz has an interview on NPR this morning where he argues against the science of climate change. If you want to see why I love this guy so much, just listen to him stand a bit taller than reality itself. (I'll link it later when NPR publishes it online).

If ever you needed two reasons why I constantly say that argument is fundamentally empty, look no further than these.

[spoonitnow]

And in a chilling sign for Republicans, 68% of Trump's supporters say they would vote for the blustery billionaire businessman if he ran as an independent rather than a Republican; just 18% say they wouldn't. The rest were undecided.

Says USAToday.

it should also be noted the not profiling creates more bad things. when policy is to search every grandma at the airport as much as every jihadi-profile person, time and energy is wasted on the worthless examination of grandmas, which detracts from the time and energy put into potential jihadis.

The amount of wasted resources was a larger victory for terrorists than 9/11.

If it was added to current taxes, it would be terrible. But if it's the only tax, it would improve the health of the economy and peoples' lives several times over. Cruz's plan is overall fantastic.

Consumption taxes are the least destructive of all taxes.

You didn't hear me the first time, so I'll say it louder: BUT HE'S WANTING TO ADD ANOTHER TAX.

On a more serious note, Cruz's tax plan wouldn't see the light of day even if the guy was elected to three terms. The tax system is never going to change until the fall of the United States.

[JKDS]

Just to jump over the conversation to share two things:

On Netflix, Best of Enemies is a great documentary about the Robert F Buckley Jr / Gore Vidal televised debates that forever changed how the news media covered politics.

Buckley was a masterful debater who was pushing a new form of combative conservatism via his publication The National Review and Vidal was a brilliant author who had just published a satire about the sexual exploration and exploits of an MTF transexual. They were both on the cutting edge of what both ends of the political spectrum would later become.

Through 10 televised debates shown after news coverage of the R/D conventions, they had forever changed how the news media would cover politics - no longer centrists who merely cemented the truth, the News would become the argumentative punditry we all know and love today.

On top of that, Cruz has an interview on NPR this morning where he argues against the science of climate change. If you want to see why I love this guy so much, just listen to him stand a bit taller than reality itself. (I'll link it later when NPR publishes it online).

If ever you needed two reasons why I constantly say that argument is fundamentally empty, look no further than these.

Good find, I'll definately take a look. Seems pretty cool

[wufwugy]

Nah. There's tons of problematic behavior. Look at at-will employment. Half the reason people get fired over stupid shit is because they're allowed to be. Companies are permitted to do so, and do in fact do so by an overwhelming margin. Why bother risking bad publicity when you can just fire them?

What else. BP oil spill, in fact any time a company has done something to justify having an EPA. The Jungle. Ecoli scares at taco bell. The shop that refused to make a gay wedding cake. The college that suspended kids for black face.

Both companies and governments are heavily scrutinized, but governments are still more so. Hell, half our laws are to facilitate such scrutiny! There is no reason to have public records or open courts but for challenging the gov.

As far as criminal profiling being the only thing they're aware of...it's got nothing to do with hate for the government's use of it. Some director somewhere makes a movie, a bunch of tv shows follow. You can't go two episodes into law and order or the wire without hearing about profiling. It's incredibly widespread, and often is attached specifically to racial profiling...something sjw are quick to spread animosity towards.

But, while this is the most common type of profiling and the most well known by far (due to media coverage, nothing more), I can think of one other type thay ppl may know. And that is advertising profiling. But as to your point that criminal profiling is the only one ppl hate... I disagree. Loads of people can't stand the idea of ads catering to them and learning and storing info about them.

you're looking at outliers and calling them trend. you're arguing for why monopolies do not behave like monopolies behave.

[wufwugy]

Just to jump over the conversation to share two things:

On Netflix, Best of Enemies is a great documentary about the Robert F Buckley Jr / Gore Vidal televised debates that forever changed how the news media covered politics.

Buckley was a masterful debater who was pushing a new form of combative conservatism via his publication The National Review and Vidal was a brilliant author who had just published a satire about the sexual exploration and exploits of an MTF transexual. They were both on the cutting edge of what both ends of the political spectrum would later become.

Through 10 televised debates shown after news coverage of the R/D conventions, they had forever changed how the news media would cover politics - no longer centrists who merely cemented the truth, the News would become the argumentative punditry we all know and love today.

On top of that, Cruz has an interview on NPR this morning where he argues against the science of climate change. If you want to see why I love this guy so much, just listen to him stand a bit taller than reality itself. (I'll link it later when NPR publishes it online).

If ever you needed two reasons why I constantly say that argument is fundamentally empty, look no further than these.

well, there is merit to arguing "against" climate change. ive noticed positions are much more nuanced that is the narrative. geophysicists do use hard science to show why the earth may be warming and the statistics suggest a level of probability that it is, but then they jump to wild conclusions about where it's going based on that. the other side sees the wild conclusions for the baseless they are, but then make the mistake of denying much probability of climate change being real.

argument is empty the same way that a description of gravity is empty. the description is not the thing itself. but a description of gravity can be evaluated on the merits, just like any argument. argument can't be invalid because if it were that would mean that there's no way to describe validity. unless ofc you want to accept that premise, at which point the argument against argument is self-defeated and pointless.

[wufwugy]

You didn't hear me the first time, so I'll say it louder: BUT HE'S WANTING TO ADD ANOTHER TAX.

exchange

[spoonitnow]

exchange

I was going to type out a typical "in-debate" response to whatever your typical "in-debate" response would have been, but it's like midnight and I'm old and tired so fuck it.

On a real note, I'm soooo hoping that we get to see Trump vs. Hillary.

[JKDS]

you're looking at outliers and calling them trend. you're arguing for why monopolies do not behave like monopolies behave.

Outliers, sure. You are way to deep into the Kool aid to have any real discussion about this.

[wufwugy]

Outliers, sure. You are way to deep into the Kool aid to have any real discussion about this.

the view that when people say anti-government things they're drinking kool-aid seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the arguments. government is not a unique entity. it is a monopoly. science and academia have a lot to say about monopolies. i ask that we understand these things and apply them appropriately.

the drinking of kool-aid transpires when the fact that government is a monopoly and should be assessed as one is disregarded.

[spoonitnow]

the view that when people say anti-government things they're drinking kool-aid seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the arguments. government is not a unique entity. it is a monopoly. science and academia have a lot to say about monopolies. i ask that we understand these things and apply them appropriately.

the drinking of kool-aid transpires when the fact that government is a monopoly and should be assessed as one is disregarded.

You didn't hear him the first time: YOU DRANK THE KOOL AID SO YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER. AKA FUCK LOGIC.

[a500lbgorilla]

well, there is merit to arguing "against" climate change. ive noticed positions are much more nuanced that is the narrative. geophysicists do use hard science to show why the earth may be warming and the statistics suggest a level of probability that it is, but then they jump to wild conclusions about where it's going based on that. the other side sees the wild conclusions for the baseless they are, but then make the mistake of denying much probability of climate change being real.

Sure, sure. There's merit in understanding it all and engaging on the front of what should or could be done. But that's not where Cruz is laying down the line. Hear him here: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459026...-ted-cruz-says

argument is empty the same way that a description of gravity is empty. the description is not the thing itself. but a description of gravity can be evaluated on the merits, just like any argument. argument can't be invalid because if it were that would mean that there's no way to describe validity. unless ofc you want to accept that premise, at which point the argument against argument is self-defeated and pointless.

Well, argument is empty in the exact opposite way as the description of gravity being empty. Gravity is predictive and it can tell you about the past, there's meaning in it. And there can be meaning in argument, if both participants have a strong mastery of the facts, have a reverence and respect for them, and are dedicated to the argument bringing everyone closer to the Truth with a capital T. That almost never happens.

There's a story about some mathematician or scientist who was proven wrong and was glad for it. He didn't worry about the time he had wasted perusing whatever he was on about incorrectly, nor did he worry about missing his chance to cement his place in the history of science, he was just glad to be shown wrong.

Argument is empty in every other way, but still useful. That's what Buckley and Vidal knew, that it doesn't have to be about the issues as much as it has to be about the other person and the audience. It's not about battling out ideas to strengthen them or see one as clearly superior, it's just about figuring out who should be following whom.

[wufwugy]

a description of gravity is an argument.

people don't describe gravity wrongly that often because of how easy it is for that argument to be falsified.

it seems to me that you're looking at things that are not as easy to falsify as a bad argument for gravity, and thinking of them as fundamentally different from arguments that are easy to falsify. i see no reason to think that would be the case.

if you are correct, you are also not correct. saying argument is empty is itself an argument, meaning that the claim is empty itself. it's like saying numbers are not numeric.

[wufwugy]

Sure, sure. There's merit in understanding it all and engaging on the front of what should or could be done. But that's not where Cruz is laying down the line. Hear him here: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459026...-ted-cruz-says

well, he's not wrong. he is wrong about the data he stated as showing that global warming isn't true (the data doesn't say one way or the other), but that's mostly it, at least on the substantive agw stuff.

[a500lbgorilla]

Gov't is a monopoly, scientific theories are arguments... you're missing the mark on both of these in the same way. For two things to be the same without qualification, they need to be isomorphic. One difference and you've got to say "Gov't is like a monopoly" "Gravity is like an argument."

The basic difference is that the scientific method attempts to restrict how you approach a problem in a manner that keeps you from being as stupid as you normally are, whereas general argument has no such process or effect.

[a500lbgorilla]

well, he's not wrong. he is wrong

Right, he's wrong. He's wrong about every new piece of information he brings to the table and wrong about his overall conclusions, but no one can nail him down on it because he's so good at arguing - he's so good at letting people be as stupid as the always are.

[spoonitnow]

It's about to be a fucking blood bath for that Canadian fuck Cruz.

[wufwugy]

Gov't is a monopoly, scientific theories are arguments... you're missing the mark on both of these in the same way. For two things to be the same without qualification, they need to be isomorphic. One difference and you've got to say "Gov't is like a monopoly" "Gravity is like an argument."

The basic difference is that the scientific method attempts to restrict how you approach a problem in a manner that keeps you from being as stupid as you normally are, whereas general argument has no such process or effect.

the scientific method is an argument.

the lack of process or effect you apply to general argument exists for the scientific method as well. it's just that most people have mostly accepted the scientific method. when you say things wrong about gravity, you tend to get shutdown because it's easy to shut those down.

things that are the same are not different because one is more difficult to achieve than the other.

[wufwugy]

Right, he's wrong. He's wrong about every new piece of information he brings to the table and wrong about his overall conclusions, but no one can nail him down on it because he's so good at arguing - he's so good at letting people be as stupid as the always are.

what overall conclusion is he wrong about?

his overall conclusion is what he's most right about, actually.

[a500lbgorilla]

the scientific method is an argument.

No.

the lack of process or effect you apply to general argument exists for the scientific method as well. it's just that most people have mostly accepted the scientific method. when you say things wrong about gravity, you tend to get shutdown because it's easy to shut those down.

No.

There are arguments that surround science, but they are not the scientific method. Look at the arguments that surrounded Darwin's Evolution and compare them to how Darwin formed his theory of Evolution.

things that are the same are not different because one is more difficult to achieve than the other.

No.

[a500lbgorilla]

what overall conclusion is he wrong about?

his overall conclusion is what he's most right about, actually.

Alright, let me listen to it again.

[a500lbgorilla]

"Is there global warming? I'm asking you."

"Sure."

"Alright you're incorrect."

[a500lbgorilla]

"Climate Change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory for a gov't power that wants to take power because it can never be disproven."

Ride those dummies, Ted.

[a500lbgorilla]

He really is amazing. I can't stop but love how he dances between truth and nonsense.

[a500lbgorilla]

"Climate Change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory for a gov't power that wants to take power because it can never be disproven."

Ride those dummies, Ted.

Honestly, this is a great point.

Is Global Warming falsifiable?

It's an even better point because he can throw it out rhetorically, but someone can pick it up seriously and really wonder about it. It's why I love him.

edit and TLDR, the answer is yes.

[wufwugy]

No.



No.

There are arguments that surround science, but they are not the scientific method. Look at the arguments that surrounded Darwin's Evolution and compare them to how Darwin formed his theory of Evolution.



No.

im not getting into this with you.

if you think this is a debate, you don't know what argument is. the scientific method is the leading argument for how to describe reality. one day a better argument may come along. there are plenty of worse arguments.

"Climate Change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory for a gov't power that wants to take power because it can never be disproven."

we're not dealing with exact terminology here. "climate change" is not a scientific theory.

cruz is correct about the political climate change elements being pseudo-scientific.

[a500lbgorilla]

im not getting into this with you.

if you think this is a debate, you don't know what argument is. the scientific method is the leading argument for how to describe reality. one day a better argument may come along. there are plenty of worse arguments.

No it isn't. It simply isn't. I'll explain it as I've explained it before, but no it isn't.

we're not dealing with exact terminology here. "climate change" is not a scientific theory.

cruz is correct about the political climate change elements being pseudo-scientific.

Holy shit.

[a500lbgorilla]

Wuf, what is the scientific method?

What is climate change?

[a500lbgorilla]

Right, he's wrong. He's wrong about every new piece of information he brings to the table and wrong about his overall conclusions, but no one can nail him down on it because he's so good at arguing - he's so good at letting people be as stupid as they always are.

This post of mine is seriously burning this forum down right now.

edit wish I didn't typo 'they' though

[a500lbgorilla]

Let me show you how the scientific method isn't an argument.

There was a time way back when where someone shown light through a prism and saw a rainbow and said, "the impurities of the glass have corrupted the light and given us the colors."

Then thousands of years later, one dude took a second prism which refracted the light of the first back into white light, thus showing that white light was actually all-colored light.

Where's the argument?

[wufwugy]

Wuf, what is the scientific method?

you've asked this before and i gave the correct answer.

What is climate change?

climate change is change of climate. that is not a scientific theory, unless you want to say that the observation that climates change is a theory, but that's more of a law than anything. in fact im not exactly sure what it is. mmm might have a better explanation. if we start talking about how anthropogenic global warming could arise from geophysical properties and theories, then we're getting more into what we can call scientific theories relevant to climate change.

[a500lbgorilla]

you've asked this before and i gave the correct answer.

Googling ain't giving.

[a500lbgorilla]

climate change is change of climate. that is not a scientific theory, unless you want to say that the observation that climates change is a theory, but that's more of a law than anything. in fact im not exactly sure what it is. mmm might have a better explanation. if we start talking about how anthropogenic global warming could arise from geophysical properties and theories, then we're getting more into what we can call scientific theories relevant to climate change.

The greenhouse gas effect happens.

[a500lbgorilla]

Let me show you how the scientific method isn't an argument.

There was a time way back when where someone shown light through a prism and saw a rainbow and said, "the impurities of the glass have corrupted the light and given us the colors."

Then thousands of years later, one dude took a second prism which refracted the light of the first back into white light, thus showing that white light was actually all-colored light.

Where's the argument?

And don't get me wrong, you can find argument around it. But argument isn't an aspect of the scientific method. The scientific method is bringing in the second prism and seeing what happens.

[wufwugy]

Then thousands of years later, one dude took a second prism which refracted the light of the first back into white light, thus showing that white light was actually all-colored light.

that's not the scientific method. it's an experiment.

the argument that is the scientific method includes experimentation. the argument that is the scientific method is the description of steps to take to use to accurately describe the phenomena of the prism light. it says "the way we do this to an appropriate level of certainty is to hypothesize in certain ways, experiment in certain ways, analyze in certain ways, repeat in certain ways, then develop theories in certain ways". this is an argument.

[a500lbgorilla]

that's not the scientific method. it's an experiment.

the argument that is the scientific method includes experimentation. the argument that is the scientific method is the description of steps to take to use to accurately describe the phenomena of the prism light. it says "the way we do this to an appropriate level of certainty is to hypothesize in certain ways, experiment in certain ways, analyze in certain ways, repeat in certain ways, then develop theories in certain ways". this is an argument.

It's called the experimental method, too, friendo.

[wufwugy]

And don't get me wrong, you can find argument around it. But argument isn't an aspect of the scientific method. The scientific method is bringing in the second prism and seeing what happens.

you've got it backwards. the scientific method is the argument that people bring to the physical universe.

[a500lbgorilla]

you've got it backwards. the scientific method is the argument that people bring to the physical universe.

I think I taught you that trick.

It's how people translate the physical world into human terms. There's no argument. The argument is when they turn to others and say, "I have the answer" and they say, "nah, you don't".

edit and even then, like I said before, in the best of circumstances, the argument can be great, but that's not always the case. People argued against Darwin's theory of evolution and even played out lines insulting Darwin's ancestors as monkeys unlike theirs. Just as people argued over the same observations with Cajal driven by their need to see what wasn't there so they could have their name sealed into the history books. But the truth has a way of being independent of anyone's opinions, and science has a funny way of getting close to that truth.

[wufwugy]

so cruz got one of the most coveted endorsements in all politics (the iowa evangelical leader). it'll be a weird turn of events for cruz to not win iowa

also national polls mean next to nothing now. if all the primaries happened on the same date, they would, but these 30-40 percents trump is getting in states like georgia are subject to all the change in the world that comes from momentum from early states.

half of me wants to see cruz trump and rubio get to march with a third of the vote then nobody will have a majority then brokered convention then mitt! mitt! mitt! mitt! mitt! will get nominated for the "i told you so" candidacy.

[a500lbgorilla]

All of me wants to see Cruz win the R ticket. I'm always impressed. It might just be that I like demagogues over power-players, but Cruz is always polished.

[wufwugy]

cruz has the upper hand vs trump here. big time. trump is attacking cruz out of weakness and he knows it. notice how trump said he wouldnt attack cruz unless cruz attacks him first, but now has taken that back and is lashing out. meanwhile cruz is a rock and sticking to his plan.

the man is fucking isaac newton

[JKDS]

Idk, there wasn't any reason to attack or focus on Cruz before. There was carson and bush and rubio to look at

[wufwugy]

Idk, there wasn't any reason to attack or focus on Cruz before. There was carson and bush and rubio to look at

well yes. what im getting at here is subtle

few days ago trump preempted a fight by saying "he's rising in the polls now but i won't attack him unless he attacks me". then cruz doesnt attack. then trump changes his mind and attacks. cruz is playing his hand the way he wants but trump is not.

i think this also plays to the narrative cruz wants to put out. he's "the one true conservative who doesn't play games but can obviously handle his shit when needed"

[spoonitnow]

Nah Canadian Cruz attacked Trump in underhanded ways. It's not a big deal though because Trump wipes the floor with him in Iowa and every other state except maybe Alaska.

[wufwugy]

why alaska

[spoonitnow]

why alaska

Because they're basically a part of Canada, where Cruz is from.

[a500lbgorilla]

Idk, there wasn't any reason to attack or focus on Cruz before. There was carson and bush and rubio to look at

Trump is like a plague. It sprawls into every opening it can find. Cruz is like a German Army. It concentrates its forces and pierces through.

Only a misguided fool would support Trump as this point.

[JKDS]

Im not a trump supporter, I just respect what he's doing. It's amazing how much name recognition can do, and how much pure advertising talent can do.

Im a misguided fool who supports bernie though.

[wufwugy]

Im a misguided fool who supports bernie though.

why do you support bernie?

[wufwugy]

Only a misguided fool would support Trump as this point.

im on the fence. i wouldnt support him in the primary, but im on the fence in a general. im unsure of how to assess him.

part of me thinks that if he's using your strategy of negotiation and he's actually more reasonable behind the scenes, he could be a great president who would focus on significant reductions in regulations and taxes. another part of me thinks that he would be such a disaster that the authoritarian left would come out on top over the next twenty years in response.

another part of me thinks that 4 years of hillary would be better than 4 years of trump, not because her policies are anything but awful, but because she'd lose reelection to a likely solid gop candidate.

[spoonitnow]

Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump

[JKDS]

why do you support bernie?

In a world of dishonesty, bernie has credibility. When he talks about getting things done in congress, he speaks of compromise and finding middle grounds rather than unreasonably pushing a far left agenda. Specifically, he said this with gun control.

I'm also his target audience, 90s kid with debt.

But, even when his policies are questionable, I don't see those ever being an issue. Is he gonna dismantle banks and crush wall street? No way. Just like trump isn't gonna deport 11 million people.

When you compare him to the other candidates though, I don't see a hidden plan or agenda. He's playing face up, while ppl like clinton, cruz, rubio, carson, and even trump to some extent are playing with hidden motives.