NYC has its own vibe, last time I was there it was pretty good and friendly, but its been awhile and things change. Still Broadway, the NY Stock Exchange, the Village, MOMA, MET, all the great places, it hard to imagine another city quite like it.
Someone once said that in New York you can stand on a corner somewhere downtown for a couple of hours and someone you know will come along.
Never having been in New York, I was amazed to meet up with a person I had not seen for a few years while going through the airport for the first and only time.
Wonder who I would have met if I had actually gone downtown. :roll:
Reply to Sir2u I hung around between midtown and downtown stayed out of upper Manhattan usually. I don't recall ever running into a friend. Celebrities yes.
I do. I’m not sure how long I’ll remain here, and I’m not sure how healthy it is for me. But there are some incredible things about it, and I’ve met some incredible people.
I love NYC, I don't think I'll ever move away. There's plenty to do, great and ethnically diverse food, a awesome craft beer scene, plenty of museums, etc. And yes I've seen a handful of celebrities.
I haven’t been; I work on the retail side of wine which means I don’t get out to wine bars for some reason. My friends and I like to have wine parties where we seek out deals on obscure bottles.
Reply to Agustino Nah, it's the greatest city in the world. You can't smoke in public in the US, and the neighborhood bars are friendly. Crowds, sure, but that's all part of it.
René DescartesMarch 04, 2018 at 04:59#1586510 likes
Really? Isn't it super-crowded, full of smoke, and nobody knows anyone else type of place?
Was Hanover talking about Atlanta or New York?
Why would you want to go to a city where everybody knows you? You wouldn't be able to get away with anything.
Someday I might yet visit New York. I have been there before, but the list of things I want to see has changed quite a bit--like the top of the former American Radiator Building (called something else now) and the CBS building -- influenced and designed by Saarinen, I want to say I at least saw the Statue of Liberty (even at a distance -- don't have to kiss her big toe), the Gownus Canal (it has a history)--stuff like that.
When I was younger I would have wanted to go to St. Marks Baths and other gay sleaze boutiques, but now I'm too old--and it's not there anyway. (Yes, I am -- at 71, one has to just exude savoir faire from one's pores to have a good time in these places; I don't.) Plus, there's lice and bedbugs to think about. I'll go to Stonewall Inn as an obligatory act of pilgrimage.
So as someone who greatly prizes entrepreneurship opportunities, I would imagine that fact might change your mind, if only slightly, about NYC. NYC is also not full of smoke, btw.
So as someone who greatly prizes entrepreneurship opportunities, I would imagine that fact might change your mind, if only slightly, about NYC.
Why do you say NYC has great entrepreneurship opportunities? As far as I know, NYC is an expensive city - this is something that makes starting a business more difficult by requiring a greater starting capital. It is true that you also have access to greater resources (in terms of hiring opportunities, financing opportunities, etc.) but it is not clear that this alone makes it great. It's also more competitive than other places.
And of course entrepreneurship isn't everything about life.
The access to greater resources correlates with the higher costs; it's the same across any discipline. The result is both higher risk and higher reward. And the competition actually is another correlate; higher competition means higher quality output. It's harder to fool some suckers in NYC than it is in Eastern Europe.
It's harder to fool some suckers in NYC than it is in Eastern Europe.
Hmmm, are you sure? :rofl: Eastern Europeans are paranoid, they are used to get the midnight knock on the door from Communist times. These people are tough - not easy to fool. For example, Eastern Europeans usually don't even respond to emails unless you call them first or they know you. People from the West seem a lot more gullible from this perspective for sure.
I had a dark joke about my dog still not having come back, but I self censored it.
You mean that fine little pom called Janus?
Maybe she's taken a trip to Uranus
The poor lil' bitch
Will gave you an itch
'Til a fart in a crowd makes her famous
CuddlyHedgehogMarch 04, 2018 at 18:22#1587790 likes
The generalization about New Yorkers, though, is that they don't take no shit.
They say you can take the bitch out of Chicago but you can never take the Chicago outta the bitch. :wink:
I absolutely LOVE the vibe of the city, it has a heart beat that runs at a much faster pace than those in the burbs. I love the culture literally at every corner in Chicago, I love the attitude of Chicago, I love the hustle that makes Chicago run, I love the ploy of non expectation of tipping and often basing the tip upon the execution of that ploy. I love the train ride, I love people watching, I love passing the neighborhoods seeing how it changes as we pass into a new one. I love short but meaningful interaction with people in the city and how genuinely warm most are and how easily it is returned to me.
When I first moved out to Phoenix I was told that my speaking style was "curt" and although I agreed I realized I needed to put a 'filter' in place to actively sound pleasant and friendly. Now? The nice filter remains in place but every so often, when my wick has been shortened too many times, by too many uncaring people, that bitch attitude from Chicago shows up and I go off. Kind of a reset and it is usually at the right person but at times it comes out sideways.
Reply to Baden Because it would involve linking my personal life with the forum in a public manner. I also don't care enough about you vermin to let you know who I am, :hearts:
CuddlyHedgehogMarch 05, 2018 at 00:39#1588610 likes
Reply to Buxtebuddha we know what you look like... and we may know where you live too.
Didn't have much time, so I'm still in the first chapter. I very clearly do not know enough about French Structuralism or Saussure to make an educated commentary as of right now. Since the next chapter is on Husserl I hope this will change a bit.
I do intend on making an "Introducing Akanthinos to Derrida" thread in the following next days, and will likely require your assistance at that point!
Reply to Akanthinos Heh, if it helps, I reckon the first essay is the worst - or rather, the most inconcequential - in the whole book and can actually be skipped entirely without missing anything important. I have no idea why Derrida/his editor decided to put it first in the collection, other than to act as a kind of intellectual shibboleth - if you can get through that one, the rest comes off great (except for maybe the third essay on Jabes which is again a bit blugh - although very 'pretty' - and again I dont know why two of the most bleugh essays were put right at the front of the book).
Heh, if it helps, I reckon the first essay is the worst - or rather, the most inconcequential - in the whole book and can actually be skipped entirely without missing anything important.
Ah, thanks! I'll try to power through them.
Now, just to be sure I understand this, we he refers to the sign as deceased, and as this death as the precondition for it entering language, is this death only the general determination of the meaning of the sign? Is death here just a flourish stand-in for entropy?
"Now, one would seek in vain a concept in phenomenology which would permit the conceptualization of intensity or force. The conceptualization not only of direction but of power, not only the in but the tension of intentionality." Force and signification, p. 27
This strikes me as wrong. Force could be conceptualized through the description of the objectual intuition. This seemingly would be hard to achieve in regards to objects of literary criticism, and furthermore harder to achieve without breaching the terms of the reduction.
It also strikes me as quite hard to believe that D. passes from this criticism to the subject of the founding metaphor of Western civilization being that of light and darkness, as phenomenology's defect in conceptualizing force means that this metaphor cannot be exploited to it's full potential.... Surely D. knew of Merleau-Ponty's works... ? I can hardly think of any other philosophical "school" which would be better placed to attack the theme of light and darkness!
(1) Re: light and darkness - wait for the fuller discussion on light that takes place in the "Violence and Metaphyscis" essay (the one on Levinas), where Derrida puts more meat on the bone you refer to.
(2) Re: 'deceased', 'death' is Derrida's somewhat overwrought term for that which allows any sign to be de/recontextualized, so that it may mean something else, something other. It's a bit more complicated than this (Derrida is always keen on distinguishing his position from that of simply affirming the polysemy of words, because he's after isolating the conditions of polysemy, as it were, and he's also suspicious of the wholistic overtones of the idea of 'context'), but that's a rough - very rough - starting point.
(3) Re: force, let me quote John Protevi on this one: "For Derrida, however, force, while marking the breaking point for consciousness, its point of inscription in a world of force that robs it of its pretensions to self-mastery), remains an inarticulate ('mystical') other, even as the disruption of consciousness by force is affirmed in welcoming the other" (Protevi, Political Physics). Again, the discussion of Levinas later on in the book is apposite to this.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 05, 2018 at 11:37#1589520 likes
Our page on Facebook page is not trash! :sad:
And might I add that those who might be taking a break from the boards here are often found there and are some of our most loyal readers. :heart:
But it is kind of ridiculous of you to permit postings in threads where at least one person fails to use any form of capitalization or punctuation and several others have severe problems using English and not make any mention of these facts to them.
Yeah, it's noticeable, isn't it? Since I've been fired. That wouldn't have lasted long under my watch.
If you, as an administrator, have anything to say to me do it through the proper channels. If not shut up.
Ooh, administrator now? Well I never! Here's the deal: if you can't take it - and you clearly can't - then don't dish it out. Don't ask for it and then complain when it turns up. Don't spend your precious time going out of your way to call attention to - and remark disparagingly upon - a post of mine by way of its reply (perhaps you've forgotten or thought that I wouldn't notice or that I wouldn't respond in a similar vein) and maybe I'll do likewise. That sounds like a fair deal to me.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 05, 2018 at 13:18#1589810 likes
Robison said in court Tuesday that Carter’s trial would have been held right then and there if a settlement had been reached in the only case ahead of him on the court’s docket — for which a large jury pool was assembled in the courtroom.
CuddlyHedgehogMarch 05, 2018 at 14:48#1589900 likes
Coming from someone whose posts are typically a horrific composition of poorly researched word salad, insults and emoticons this is a bit rich.
Why, are you jealous that I can get done in a few minutes, with just a sprinkling of emoticons and no research what it takes you hours of wasted time to do? :blush:
PF isn't a warring tribe of philosophical allies and enemies, it's a bunch of people who share a hobby doing something they love. As much as I think you're an ass for 'attacking posts' by breaking them down into decontextualised fragments - replying to the letter more than the spirit -, and when you make these 'I'm better than you' posts which are trolling-as-means-to-disavow-responsibility for negative affect, I still think you have interesting things to say and usually read your posts.
I think you'd do a better job - I'd certainly find you more pleasant to engage with - if you cultivated your interests in philosophy by discussing it charitably rather than treating every prolonged discussion as a battle of wits. I'm sorry for responding to your put downs in kind, it's an easy trap to fall into. Sometimes I'm a bit of a shit too.
When I share a link in a post, I want to provide context for something I believe is unclear. I don't think of it as a game of 'you wanna disagree with me? disagree with these references' which I literally do for a living. I put in a lot of effort to avoid that rhetorical trap in my posts here, so that if I assume familiarity with a concept I'll reference it (and usually try to provide a condensed explanation), or if I'm relying on a fact I'll try and cite it.
I don't think you should glorify the absence of research in your posts as a personal strength, if you put more effort into researching them and trying to understand 'your opponents' as 'fellow travellers' I think you'd get less vitriol in response. Unless of course you're fully aware of this and want to cover the floor in piss.
Reply to fdrake That is the thing. You want me to play the game by your own rules, but my whole point is that your rules are wrong. That is why I laugh about them. More facts do not bring wisdom unless you think wisdom lies in the encyclopedias of the world. I'm not here to find out facts - I could go to my local encyclopedia, it probably does a better job actually. Me laughing about your approach though seems to bother you - why is that?
You seem to glorify facts. I am uninterested in facts since everyone knows them or can gain access to them when they need them. That is why I ridicule your approach - because I disagree with your way of approaching problems. You think knowing more facts can settle the issues that are being discussed.
I don't think you should glorify the absence of research in your posts as a personal strength, if you put more effort into researching them and trying to understand 'your opponents' as 'fellow travellers' I think you'd get less vitriol in response.
I do research stuff, but I feel no need to cite it. I don't need anyone to agree with what I say. If what I say is the truth, and you disagree with it, then it's your loss. And if what you say is the truth, and I disagree with you, then it's my loss. I can accept that, I have no anxiety about being wrong and paying the price.
Agustino is simply an idiot who doesn't merely think he's smart, but knows he's smarter than everyone else in the room. And if you're the smartest in the room, it's not necessary to understand (or properly read) opposing arguments, conduct research, etc.
Agustino is simply an idiot who doesn't merely think he's smart, but knows he's smarter than everyone else in the room. And if you're the smartest in the room, it's not necessary to understand (or properly read) opposing arguments, conduct research, etc.
No worries, it was funny. I like how much outrage a simple comment has caused, which wasn't even that offensive to begin with, more of a funny remark. :lol:
Maw, you know, if I actually am the smartest man in the room, there's nothing that you can say that will change that, so why bother? And if I'm not the smartest man in the room, then there's nothing that can be said that will make me the smartest. It's just a matter of fact, as @fdrake likes to say. I need to now look for a link for that, be right back! :cool:
As tempting as you make it to see you as an adversary, I won't do it. I'm sorry for responding rudely.
You seem to glorify facts. I am uninterested in facts since everyone knows them or can gain access to them when they need them. That is why I ridicule your approach - because I disagree with your way of approaching problems. You think knowing more facts can settle the issues that are being discussed.
No, I think careful interpretation of facts - being informed by them - is what it means to take a reasonable position on something. The facts don't fully determine their own interpretation. If I use a word or reference a concept that I think is unlikely for all readers to have seen or to already understand, I'll provide a condensed description and a reference if I can find one. This way, if someone comes along and says 'fdrake, you're misinterpreting this idea' or 'fdrake, you're full of shit' or 'fdrake, you're being needlessly pedantic' I like to be able to evaluate if I am full of shit, needlessly pedantic or whether I've got legs to stand on or not. I also enjoy engaging with people's references when I have the time. So, posters like: @Maw,@StreetlightX,@Baden,@apokrisis, @VagabondSpectre, @photographer (I miss him), @180 Proof (I miss him too), @csalisbury (I miss him), @Wayfarer, @unenlightened who put a lot of effort into their posts to make them informative, concise and grounded. Even if I disagree with them on lots of things, they're usually good fun to read and I learn a lot from engaging with them.
I really don't understand why you're attempting to take a principled position against producing well referenced and well researched posts. If you were anyone else, I would sound the troll claxon, but I'm pretty sure you're being sincere for some reason.
I do not want to give "my opponents" an easy time - progress cannot be made that way.
There's a big difference between giving a careful refutation of someone's ideas and insulting them. I really don't see the point, if the references piss you off so much don't engage with them. And please don't mistake me putting effort into a post, providing references or the theoretical background I'm using for it as an attempt to brow-beat someone into submission.
I do research stuff, but I feel no need to cite it. I don't need anyone to agree with what I say. If what I say is the truth, and you disagree with it, then it's your loss. And if what you say is the truth, and I disagree with you, then it's my loss. I can accept that, I have no anxiety about being wrong and paying the price.
Well, hurrah for your personal integrity I suppose. I feel similarly, with the caveat that I try very hard to at least set out the conceptual background for the disagreement, with references if possible. I don't want to sit on a pile of books like a hidden throne.
Though, to be fair, I've definitely tried to browbeat a particularly arrogant undergrad statistician away from their ridiculous ideas with literature before on here. Don't remember the name, so instead of insulting them I gave them lots of homework.
I very much miss @180proof too, along with the other members who are MIA. Busycuttingcrap too. Even Mariner, who I almost always disagreed with, at least provided seasoned arguments.
I was trying to remember the name of the person who had Hulk Hogan as their avatar and was a legit philosopher of language, but it didn't come to mind. Also... that Bolshevik physicist dude whose office coffee machine kept breaking. @Postmodern Beatnik too.
I'm using for it as an attempt to brow-beat someone into submission.
Why are you making such a big fuss about it then? I said something that you obviously find to be untrue - why is it then that you lack confidence in yourself and write a huge post in reply to a mere 10 word comment? Do you need to prove yourself to me, or to other people, or what is at play here? Why do you give so much importance to my comment?
If I use a word or reference a concept that I think is unlikely for all readers to have seen or to already understand, I'll provide a condensed description and a reference if I can find one.
But people can certainly look for references themselves if they want to read more about it. On the other hand, it is simply a well-known psychological fact that length implies strength, sources imply authority, etc. I know this, I use it when I market stuff. Some people here already find your writing very strong, some of them no doubt for these very reasons. And this has nothing to do with whether they're stupid or smart themselves - human beings react, for the most part, in the same ways to such triggers psychologically. In fact, the smart ones are probably even dumber - they are not even aware that they fall for such things anymore, because they are too enthralled by their own intelligence.
This way, if someone comes along and says 'fdrake, you're misinterpreting this idea' or 'fdrake, you're full of shit' or 'fdrake, you're being needlessly pedantic' I like to be able to evaluate if I am full of shit, needlessly pedantic or whether I've got legs to stand on or not.
So then this seems to be just a way to justify yourself. Why do you need to justify yourself?
I really don't understand why you're attempting to take a principled position against producing well referenced and well researched posts.
Because insight is not contained or achieved through more research and more facts. If it were, then we would call the encyclopedias wise, but we don't. Wisdom is achieved mainly through living and reflecting on life. I have not seen much of that in your posts. You post a lot of facts, but little wisdom - of course, that is just my opinion, but you asked for it so I told you - do what you want with it.
Reply to Maw I think Mariner & 180 Proof were both great posters. Busycuttingcrap, however, was a dogmatic poster with whom I did not find it possible to have reasonable conversations.
@Mariner has contributed here and hopefully will again. Maybe some of the others will too, but seems less likely. I think I have 180's email somewhere though. I might drop him a line.
I don't think they actually did the homework. My hope was that they would discover their errors as they progressed in their education and then maybe remember the post, come back to it and go 'hey, this is cool'. But that's a pipe dream.
This line gets my vote as the best insult of the week.
I agree with everything you wrote about why you're here - that's why I'm here too. We can talk reason, rationality, and logic all we want, but eventually it has to come back to the world we live in. People like you who have deep knowledge of how the world works make a huge difference in the quality of the philosophy here.
Why are you making such a big fuss about it then? I said something that you obviously find to be untrue - why is it then that you lack confidence in yourself and write a huge post in reply to a mere 10 word comment? Do you need to prove yourself to me, or to other people, or what is at play here? Why do you give so much importance to my comment?
I don't think @fdrake was just responding to you and I didn't find his response defensive. At the risk of being presumptuous in interpreting him - He was describing the purpose and value of this forum and, more broadly, reason.
Reply to T Clark Although yes, I do quote Kant and Aristotle quite often. If you search for my name + kant or my name + aristotle you'll find quite a few results, unlike some posters here, not going to mention any names.
179 results for Aristotle
248 for Kant
232 for Plato
342 for Schopenhauer
225 for Spinoza
106 for Wittgenstein
etc.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 05, 2018 at 19:12#1591030 likes
I remember Wosret, it wasn't him. I searched the members list and couldn't see any Hulk Hogans. If it helps anyone remember them they were very knowledgeable about semantic externalism/internalism debates and usually advanced a 'coherentist justification is refuted by Lord of the Rings' argument. I think @Banno and @Lone Wolf had extended coherentist justification and semantic externalism debates with them on the old forum.
That happened a lot. I had the Ultimate Warrior in a top hat as an avatar, he had Hulk Hogan eating spaghetti. I think it's time I became the Ultimate Warrior again.
Although yes, I do quote Kant and Aristotle quite often. If you search for my name + kant or my name + aristotle you'll find quite a few results, unlike some posters here, not going to mention any names.
I wasn't trying to make a serious point, just teasing a bit.
Yes, one of the first, if not the first, discussion I had on PF was with him and a few others (including @Soylent and @Mayor of Simpleton ) on ethics. Was impressed from the start.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 05, 2018 at 20:05#1591510 likes
Reply to Maw It was on Saturday and I turned 48 which was REALLY old when I was young but now...well...I will attempt to age gracefully as opposed to fighting it with Botox and the rest. Just clean eating, lots of sunshine, exercise and preparing the ranch for sale. We found the cabin in the woods to fulfill our dream of owning/running a Bed and Breakfast and now it is just a matter of waiting until we have the connectivity that is necessary for NicK to keep his IT clients while I bring up the B&B.
Hurry up and wait patiently....sounds like a moto for many parts this journey called 'Life'. :heart:
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Sounds quite lovely, happy 48th. I was actually looking at my profile from the old forums, and coincidentally, noticed that my very last shoutout was from March 5th 2016 wishing you a happy birthday.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 05, 2018 at 20:11#1591610 likes
Sounds quite lovely, happy 48th. I was actually looking at my profile from the old forums, and coincidentally, noticed that my very last shoutout was from March 5th 2016 wishing you a happy birthday.
Thank you for your birthday wish and what a way to end a shout on! :clap:
Does anyone remember the term for when someone responds to a post online by breaking up the argument sentence by sentence? I remember there was a thread about it in the old forum, and there was a formal term for it, but I can't remember it. It's been bothering me for a few years now.
How about a homework help request category. It is annoying when people ask for help without being up front about it.
If I remember correctly, the old forum had an unmoderated discussion category. Even banned people were allowed to participate. There are some people I would like to continue talking to who have been banned, usually with good reason. There are touchy issues I would like to discuss which I wouldn't want to take over the forum.
Does anyone remember the term for when someone responds to a post online by breaking up the argument sentence by sentence? I remember there was a thread about it in the old forum, and there was a formal term for it, but I can't remember it. It's been bothering me for a few years now.
Does anyone remember the term for when someone responds to a post online by breaking up the argument sentence by sentence? I remember there was a thread about it in the old forum, and there was a formal term for it, but I can't remember it. It's been bothering me for a few years now.
Is Fisking considered a bad thing? I use it sometimes when the post I'm responding to has a lot of moving parts.
That depends on your ethical theory, and also on the context. It may be a good response in a particular case, and a bad one in another, according, at any rate to my own ethics.
Parts can be enumerated in many ways; you may have thought that you expressed a single or possibly a dual parted response, but as you see, other analyses are perfectly possible.
You might, on further reflection, wish to add fisking to your pet peeves, even though you confess to indulging in it yourself.
unenlightenedMarch 05, 2018 at 21:17#1591890 likes
Personally I would like to add to my own pet peeves an auto-correct that insists we should be talking about fishing.
Reply to T Clark I dislike it for several reasons, among them 1) it's aesthetically ugly 2) it often, whether intentionally or not, separates otherwise connected arguments/points 3) it can be used to remove/ignore salient points and select weaker points, and 4) select irrelevant statements in order to digress the conversation towards something unrelated.
That's not to say it doesn't have its uses. As you said, it's great for removing the "fat" off an post in order to better focus on the crux of the argument. I'll use it if context demands, but generally I try to avoid it.
I think what I have always called, and will continue to call, a line by line response can be really clear and effective. I don't know why it would be considered as otherwise.
What forum do you recommend for...um...Janus? The Dirt Forum? You play there, no?
The forum of civil engineers - we're the only ones who would put a sewage system in a playground. And of course I play there - I am a civil engineer, don't want to forget what I've learned!
As the name suggests you can look at it both ways. I am really no Jain though. If I were I would not be able to survive as a landscaper! As for Anus...well, yes, I do have one, thankfully. And I'm not about to let any Fisting disturb its smooth and efficient functioning, if that's what you had in mind...
CuddlyHedgehogMarch 05, 2018 at 22:35#1592200 likes
How the worth of a few lives pales before such greater goods! What is three, two lives, one life weighed against the world?
The world is nothing! Nothing!! Why couldn't we see this, you and I? We burn the present for the sake of a brighter future and act surprised when all it holds is ash!
No, if our minds decide the sum of small evils is a greater good, then it is our hearths that are rational.
One of my favourite quotes - always worth sharing.
Reply to René Descartes I adopted mine fairly old, he was six when I took him on. He was a fat, lazy basset hound that slept 20 hours a day. Whenever I got angry with him, as revenge he would walk over to my flowers and squish them. Bastard! I adored him so much. The reason he got sick was because I left him and went on a holiday to Hawaii and he refused to eat because I was not around. It went downhill from then.
Have you read Philosophers Dog by Raimond Gaita? I can't describe it, but sometimes I would interpret his intelligence as an almost awareness that would conflict with my philosophical position on such a subject.
Reply to Baden It would have taken only a small amount of time for that to happen, so sorry to hear that.
I don't know why it would be considered as otherwise.
Well imagine that it was a serious discussion, and you wanted to respond to each of my points, and maybe make a couple of points to some. If you also used the same technique, and in each case quoted your fragment, a fragment of the response, and your counter, followed by another fragment of response and your counter, the whole thing would become unreadable in very short order. It is as if one is having five or more different conversations at the same time with the same person, and because one really cannot respond in the same way, it is actually a form of bullying, in my opinion.
René DescartesMarch 06, 2018 at 09:22#1593270 likes
My dog passed away. :cry: I really didn't think I would be this sad.
Sorry to hear, that is very sad :( Hope you feel better soon.
Remember the conversation we had awhile ago when you said you feel invulnerable now, and I said that when tragedy happens this will no longer be the case? We are all only human, so we'll keep being affected negatively by tragedies, there seems to be no escape from that. It's part of the human condition.
The reason he got sick was because I left him and went on a holiday to Hawaii and he refused to eat because I was not around. It went downhill from then.
You shouldn't really blame yourself, animals and people can get sick for all sorts of reasons. It was probably just his time to go and it was just a coincidence that this occurred around when you went to Hawaii. He was quite old, wasn't he? :confused:
Sounds good, the civil engineers are usually more copacetic than the uncivil. :nerd:
Oh yeah, definitely man. I tell you, those civil engineers also have them math skills - first subtraction, then division for access, and finally avoidance of multiplication. It's all there.
Well imagine that it was a serious discussion, and you wanted to respond to each of my points, and maybe make a couple of points to some. If you also used the same technique, and in each case quoted your fragment, a fragment of the response, and your counter, followed by another fragment of response and your counter, the whole thing would become unreadable in very short order. It is as if one is having five or more different conversations at the same time with the same person, and because one really cannot respond in the same way, it is actually a form of bullying, in my opinion.
Man, the ressentiment on these forums is sometimes amazing. Nietzsche was right. Listen to this - complaining that it's difficult to respond to precise point by point arguments, therefore those who make them are morally inferior to you. Oh man... *facepalm* :rofl:
Why the dogs??? :( We had to put my Corgi down last year and it was just about the saddest thing I've ever had to do. They're family, and it sucks. But my God the good times are good.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 06, 2018 at 12:37#1593460 likes
:broken: @Baden Hugging you~ I am so sorry for the loss of your little one~
:broken: @TimeLine {{{{{Huggss}}}}} Agustino is right in that your going away for a bit is not what caused his passing. Animals and humans make the choice, between them and their maker alone, to depart on their terms at the time of their choosing. It bites, it sucks but love will come again in the form of a floppy eared furry friend that licks your nose! Until then embrace the memories, keep the pictures up and try to remember the good and goofy times that made you laugh and love~
:heart: :heart: :heart:
I think what I have always called, and will continue to call, a line by line response can be really clear and effective. I don't know why it would be considered as otherwise.
Yes, it's a more precise way of addressing what someone has said.
Yes, it's a more precise way of addressing what someone has said.
Most often, in my experience, it is not. Thoughts often take more than a sentence to express, and habitual Fiskers break up these thoughts so as to make easy points, even sometimes breaking up sentences, not only paragraphs (which is bad enough). Fisking is facile; it's too easy. It's the fallback tactic of the pedant, and pedants love to glorify their pedantry by calling it precision. It feels kind of fun when you're doing it, but this is an indulgence to be resisted.
But sure, sometimes it's useful.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 06, 2018 at 15:40#1593680 likes
Oh yeah, definitely man. I tell you, those civil engineers also have them math skills - first subtraction, then division for access, and finally avoidance of multiplication. It's all there.
I do hope you are being extremely sarcastic as the math requirements for a bachelors degree in civil engineering for your sophomore year at my sons college is MA 345 Differential Equations and Matrix Methods and that is after you breeze through Freshman math of Calculus and Analytical Geometry I 4
MA 242 Calculus and Analytical Geometry II.
His freshman math class has him so far out into the Physics end of it that he literally has to "come down" to do easy math as you suggest like multiplications and addition. No doubt he can do it but he has to come so far back to where the rest of us are, it is just easier for us to do the simple math for him.
It is as if one is having five or more different conversations at the same time with the same person, and because one really cannot respond in the same way, it is actually a form of bullying, in my opinion.
What counts as a different conversion is ambiguous. Is it a different conversation if it's a different topic? Is it a different conversation if it's a different aspect of the same topic? Or is it all in fact the same conversation from the beginning because it's the same back-and-forth dialogue that's been going on? However you categorise it, that isn't in itself a bad thing. It's a sign of an analytical mind to break things down like that.
It simply isn't true that one can't respond in the same way: that's a choice. Nor is it true that it's a form of bullying. I find that ludicrous, although this isn't the first time that your hyperbole has evoked such a reaction from me, and I doubt it'll be the last.
It simply isn't true that one can't respond in the same way: that's a choice.
Yes, it is a choice, but it's a lot harder, since you actually have to think, and work out your thoughts to create a coherent whole, you can't just vomit something on the page.
Reply to Agustino Actually Gus, you're unusual among Fiskers in that you do put forward your own positive opinions. You put yourself on the line, and that is admirable, no matter how ill-considered your positions are. :razz:
I think Fisking is useful when you need to simply destroy an interlocutor, such as a racist or pseudophilosopher or religious evangelist. But then we're already outside of the territory of philosophy.
Most often, in my experience, it is not. Thoughts often take more than a sentence to make, and habitual Fiskers break up these thoughts so as to make easy points, even sometimes breaking up sentences, not only paragraphs (which is bad enough). Fisking is facile. It's the fallback tactic of the pedant, and pedants love to glorify their pedantry by calling it precision. It feels kind of fun when you're doing it, but this is an indulgence to be resisted.
But sure, sometimes it's useful.
Yeah well I disagree. To state that thoughts often take more than a second to make is of course true, but misses the point. A stream of thought can and should be broken down if that's what's required to address each and every point within that stream of thought that is of significance and therefore worthy of addressing.
You may find the style that we're talking about annoying, but I find it far more annoying when someone doesn't respond in this style and ends up missing important parts, or ends up half-addressing them inadequately by way of a general comment that only just scratches the surface.
When I choose to respond like this, it is in essence no different from that other way of responding. I'm breaking down your reply into sections, and dedicating paragraphs to those sections. The only real difference is that I'm not providing that context in the form of a quote above each paragraph. That is a superficial difference. It is a difference which should make no real difference. So, by my reckoning, making it a gripe or a pet peeve says more about yourself than anything or anyone else.
As for what you claim about motive - that this style is adopted in order to make easy points - that's nothing but speculation, and uncharitable speculation at that. You don't know what my motives are, and you should give me the benefit of the doubt unless or until you get a clear indication to the contrary. Certainly this style of writing alone is not a sufficient basis to be making that judgement.
I call it "precision" because that's what it is. Coming up with a similar and related word with a negative connotation attached doesn't really detract from this point. It just brings your personal judgement into the mix.
I call it "precision" because that's what it is. Coming up with a similar word with a negative connotation attached doesn't really detract from this point. It just brings your personal judgement into the mix.
Whereas you are somehow free of personal judgement? What you are saying might, as usual, be accurately rephrased as "I am right". Well, okay.
I didn't expect you to get it. My post was not for your benefit.
I think fisking has a habit of making more of itself. The easiest way to respond to a fisking is with a fisking, in my experience it is unusual for a series of fisking responses to stay on topic without significant effort from both interlocutors, both of whom usually end up frustrated with the other due to how much a fisking perturbs the general thrust of a post.
The only time I think fisking reliably produces insightful commentary is if what someone is saying can be mapped onto series of easily related propositions or it is informative to condense what someone is saying in that way. The overall texture of philosophical discussion very rarely resembles a demonstration of this sort; it much more commonly resembles charting the features of a landscape than positioning yourself and your target as antipodes along its borders.
Fisking itself is very close to providing a sequence of negations, people fisking each-other rarely make conceptual moves towards the other's positions, this gives chains of fisking a habit of returning to points they believe they have already established and defending them against an onslaught of (already refuted) refutation. In this sense it privileges already established positions and their conceptual allies, and produces orbits of debate functionally equivalent to iterated 'I'm right and you're wrong'.
I said "Thoughts often take more than a sentence to make".
Yes, so you did. Although apparently your post was not for my benefit anyway, but for some other unnamed individual or individuals instead. So I think I'll leave it to them and spend my time elsewhere.
Yes, it is a choice, but it's a lot harder, since you actually have to think, and work out your thoughts to create a coherent whole, you can't just vomit something on the page.
And it's a lot easier to twist such a reply into "I am right". That regurgitation, at least to me, is a sign of a lack of analytic skill, or perhaps simply a sign of laziness.
The only moment fisking is useful is if it's patently absurd or there's a logical error somewhere. Otherwise, it usually is abused by singling out mistakes that are irrelevant to the larger argument but are used as a "if this is wrong then everything is wrong" even when this is often not the case. Or even worse, people that think they've got a point to make and just offer a contrary opinion.
In general the principle of charity is pretty much dead on the Internet.
people fisking each-other rarely make conceptual moves towards the other's positions, this gives chains of fisking a habit of returning to points they believe they have already established and defending them against an onslaught of (already refuted) refutation.
Exactly this. There's nothing worse for a philosophy discussion than 'fisking'. It saps the life out of conceptual development and blunts to the point of atrophy the mutual exploration of implications and ramifications - the very lifeblood of philosophical discussion. Fisking is what happens when you've stopped doing philosophy to become a two-bit haggler in the marketplace. Not that a bit of two-bit haggling every now and then isn't good for the soul.
Better a "fisk" than a block of rambling disconnected thought, drifting here and there, yet somehow missing what's right in front of them. Better an examination under a microscope than gaze from afar.
Reply to Michael From a quick glance, it looks as if you've broken down his post quite fairly, leaving whole arguments intact. I tend to use "fisking" when it's more extreme than that.
That you frame your 'defence of fisking' as an opposition, rather than as as an inclusive disjunction (possibility of a mixture of methods) is something responding like a fisker is giving you, you're framing the 'anti-fisking' responses as simple negations of your view with simply opposed properties organised in dyads. Precision/imprecision, coherent/incoherent, on topic/not on topic - these dyads aren't the allies of fisking or non-fisking strategies of debate and apply more broadly than is suggested by the framing of the issue induced by your style of response.
I don't see the problem. How else are you supposed to address the different parts of someone's post?
Not doing so in the way being discussed leaves one vulnerable to missing out something of importance, which can be frustrating. Any manifestation of an aversion to precision is likely to have that effect. I've experienced it more times than I care to remember.
singling out mistakes that are irrelevant to the larger argument but are used as a "if this is wrong then everything is wrong" even when this is often not the case.
No, they're not used as an "if" at all. That's your assumption, and it's wrong. If it's a preconceived notion then it's also a prejudice.
Cool, but note that it's not your fisking that I expressed admiration for, but the parts of your posts in which you launch into your ranty opinions, where you take risks. The very opposite of fisking.
I do hope you are being extremely sarcastic as the math requirements for a bachelors degree in civil engineering for your sophomore year at my sons college is MA 345 Differential Equations and Matrix Methods and that is after you breeze through Freshman math of Calculus and Analytical Geometry I 4
MA 242 Calculus and Analytical Geometry II.
You have to understand, Tiff, math requirements for engineers are generally the same for all disciplines for the first couple of years. The most important thing to remember is not what is in school, but what is in practice. Civil engineer's like simple equations - F = MA. We don't need no stinking differential equations. If, by some chance, we find ourselves doing calculus, we know something has gone wrong. Now that we have calculators and Excel, we don't even need to do arithmetic.
Am I oversimplifying? Of course. But I'm definitely not being "extremely sarcastic." Don't get me wrong, I love civil engineering and know lots of very smart, competent civil engineers. CE is a very concrete discipline. And I don't mean a mixture of cement, aggregate, and water. It gives us a chance to help people in very down-to-earth, day-to-day ways. Roads, sewers, water systems. We solve problems on a very practical level. I was born to be a CE. I hope your son was too. It's a good career and you earn enough to raise a family if that's what you want.
That you frame your 'defence of fisking' as an opposition, rather than as as an inclusive disjunction (possibility of a mixture of methods) is something responding like a fisker is giving you, you're framing the 'anti-fisking' responses as simple negations of your view with simply opposed properties organised in dyads.
What makes a fisk a fisk? That should come before any talk about a mixture of methods. Does it hinge on appearance or method?
If it's the former, then it's a rather superficial distinction, wouldn't you agree? I don't see it as an obvious hindrance to provide visual context by way of multiple quotations. Quite the contrary, in fact. Although, doing so isn't necessary, as is obvious, and as can be demonstrated, and as I have demonstrated here once already.
If, on the other hand, it's the latter, then it seems that A) more of us are fiskers than might be willing to admit, and B) being a fisker, in this sense, is nothing bad. Or, is it bad to analyse dialogue and dedicate paragraphs to distinct sections of relevance, irrespective of whether or not those dastardly quotations happen to make an appearance?
Precision/imprecision, coherent/incoherent, on topic/not on topic - these dyads aren't the allies of fisking or non-fisking strategies of debate and apply more broadly than is suggested by the framing of the issue induced by your style of response.
They're no more "induced" by my style of response than the "dyads" of others - pedantic/not pedantic, easy/hardwork, and so on - are "induced" by theirs. This bears a relation to thought, to a way of thinking. It bears little-to-no relation, as far as I can discern, to one's style of response, let alone one particular style as opposed to others.
Oh yes - they're afraid complicated stuff opens up the possibility of mistakes. Making assumptions is what civil engineers love to do to simplify stuff.
Oh yes - they're afraid complicated stuff opens up the possibility of mistakes. Making assumptions is what civil engineers love to do to simplify stuff.
Yah, the uncertainty and also the inability to do it on your own is something that pulled me away from civil engineering. Although, I've learned a lot from civil engineering in terms of how to approach life pragmatically, and deal with uncertainty in (more) reasonable ways.
Yah, the uncertainty and also the inability to do it on your own is something that pulled me away from civil engineering. Although, I've learned a lot from civil engineering in terms of how to approach life pragmatically, and deal with uncertainty in (more) reasonable ways.
Although I have not had the additional education that would be required to practice as one, the branch of civil engineering I enjoy most is geotechnical engineering - soils. That is one place where dealing with uncertainty is a way of life and occupational requirement. Takes some balls.
Although I have not had the additional education that would be required to practice as one, the branch of civil engineering I enjoy most is geotechnical engineering - soils. That is one place where dealing with uncertainty is a way of life and occupational requirement. Takes some balls.
In university geotechnical engineering was my favorite! Though I've never practiced in geo. But yes, I remember that dealing with soils employed a lot of empirical equations and plastic behaviour that can't be readily found in other materials. Also, factors of safety were much bigger. Though I will say this, even though I worked awhile in on-site stuff, I always had greater trouble in understanding the components of a building and how they fit together. I could do the general level calculations, but when you added stuff like bolted connections, etc. I wasn't comfortable.
In geotechnical engineering, the problems were both more complex, and simpler paradoxically. I could always get my head around stuff like say gravity retaining walls, including their design, much better for some reason.
But there was some stuff that I never understood well - like flow nets. I didn't even get what they were supposed to do, I skipped that class :rofl: .
Seems to me Fisking is definable as much by intention as method. I tend to be more holistic in my responses, but that's often because I find it more time-efficient. I feel that sometimes people expect and desire for you to address all their points in order for fear of them being misrepresented. And you can misrepresent people either way: an argument can be killed through decomposition when the whole is greater than the parts, or by malicious cherry-picking when the whole is dependent on all parts being recognized - even in sequence. But sure, if you compartmentalize to extremes, there's nowhere for the real argument to "live" and you end up with petty point scoring back and forth as eloquently described by @fdrake above. The concept and its practice though are less worth focusing on for me than the attitude of interlocutors towards each other (and by extension towards the art of argumentation in general) in a given discussion.
Seems to me Fisking is definable as much by intention as method.
I was thinking the same thing. I guess it could be passive-aggressive and obstructionist, but I had never thought of it that way. Sometimes, for me, there is too much going on in an argument to deal with it all as one piece.
Otherwise, it usually is abused by singling out mistakes that are irrelevant to the larger argument but are used as a "if this is wrong then everything is wrong" even when this is often not the case.
singling out mistakes that are irrelevant to the larger argument but are used as a "if this is wrong then everything is wrong" even when this is often not the case.
— Benkei
No, they're not used as an "if" at all. That's your assumption, and it's wrong. If it's a preconceived notion then it's also a prejudice.
They're no more "induced" by my style of response than the "dyads" of others - pedantic/not pedantic, easy/hardwork, and so on - are "induced" by theirs. This bears a relation to thought, to a way of thinking. It bears little-to-no relation, as far as I can discern, to one's style of response, let alone one particular style as opposed to others.
Eh, maybe you're right. I still don't think you'd be responding like this in an exegetical discussion. Lurking beneath the water here is 'Sapientia is good, fdrake is bad' and 'fdrake is good, Sapientia is bad'.
I'd go further and say that there's always too much going on in an argument to deal with it all as one piece. But it can be a matter of convenience.
Yeah. Definitely degrees of fisking. The Youtube Atheist community is a fiskfest, breaking up a response into salient elements does not always a fisk make. Poster's intent matters too.
The only moment fisking is useful is if it's patently absurd or there's a logical error somewhere. Otherwise, it usually is abused by singling out mistakes that are irrelevant to the larger argument but are used as a "if this is wrong then everything is wrong" even when this is often not the case. Or even worse, people that think they've got a point to make and just offer a contrary opinion.
There's nothing worse for a philosophy discussion than 'fisking'. It saps the life out of conceptual development and blunts to the point of atrophy the mutual exploration of implications and ramifications - the very lifeblood of philosophical discussion. Fisking is what happens when you've stopped doing philosophy to become a two-bit haggler in the marketplace. Not that a bit of two-bit haggling every now and then isn't good for the soul.
Agreed. It generally adulterates online philosophical conversation.
Eh, maybe you're right. I still don't think you'd be responding like this in an exegetical discussion. Lurking beneath the water here is 'Sapientia is good, fdrake is bad' and 'fdrake is good, Sapientia is bad'.
You mean, like, if we were examining a text without having a stake in the game? Possibly. But, of course, I do have a stake in this game, given that I have, virtually since I began frequenting forums such as this many years ago, tended towards a style of reply which is akin to that known as "fisking", and given that I see merits in this style of reply in contrast to other styles of reply. So, from the outset, before I even added my two pennies worth, there was an implication of "Sapientia is bad".
Yeah. Definitely degrees of fisking. The Youtube Atheist community is a fiskfest, breaking up a response into salient elements does not always a fisk make. Poster's intent matters too.
Yes, I agree that there are degrees, and I think that that's important to note. Not only are there varying degrees, but there are likely unclear and borderline cases. After all, what exactly makes a fisk a fisk has, as far as I'm aware, yet to be vigorously defined. (And yes, I also agree that intent matters).
If you narrow the field to include only the most extreme examples - or if, as unenlightened has done, you actively set out to give an uncharitable reply in a rather self-defeating attempt to emphasise the flaws alleged within a certain style of writing, and use that as a basis upon which to judge - and to prop up attacks on - that style of writing - then I can relate more to the way in which people have reacted to it. But that isn't a method of analysis which I would recommend, as it lacks impartiality and merely tailors a result in line with ones agenda or preconceived views.
Reply to jamalrob Some spam protection was on before too. It blocked me from sending PMs after I sent about 5 PMs to myself in less than 60 seconds... :rofl:
Actually, I wanted to get your help that time guys, but I was unable to PM anyone :rofl: - it said it blocked me for 60 seconds, but it was way more than that.
The developers kindly deployed an anti-Agustino plugin for me a while ago.
Is this a customizable anti___________ plugin?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 07, 2018 at 12:45#1596320 likes
Is personal change possible on a Philosophy forum?
Ideally, I personally think, that Philosophers should allow for, if not encourage growth, especially when it comes to movement on a fundamental topic for a forum member.
This is where this "one person must lose, so that the other person can win" instantly shuts down any conversation or discussion along with sharing any movement that may have been started.
Why? Change, especially on a facet of life so ingrained in people requires a gentle, logical, empathic response for what others see as 'the better way'. Gloating about a "win" of another person's movement on a topic is worse than a non starter but it encourages a shut down of sharing any change.
"I've realized that debate is very hard to do here. Before, I argued a lot and never got anywhere. Now, I more or less just state my opinion and clarify my position if prompted. There's a certain degree of snootiness that accompanies an intellectual pursuit like philosophy, which means that the number of twits with holier than thou attitudes is high on a forum like this. Plus, not everyone who posts here does so for the same reasons I come here to, which is to expose myself to different opinions and see if something I think gets objectively torn to pieces. Others, I think, come here just to "hear" themselves talk."
Less grandstanding, more getting on with it, I say. If you let what you perceive to be the vices of others dictate your actions, then what does that say about your strength of will? I don't need to be coddled to say what's on my mind or reveal where I stand on an issue. Get a grip.
Reply to Benkei "More or less" doesn't mean that I don't sometimes bite. But you go ahead and ignore the spirit of my post and, quite ironically, prove my point better than I ever could, :up:
Reply to Buxtebuddha Well, it's the shoutbox and I do love my arguments by demonstration. :wink: I thought your timing was pretty remarkable, those two comments within a day from your remark in the shoutbox. :rofl:
In my experience, the most fruitful discussions are ones where people ask a question instead of positing a position in the OP. Sometimes we also have remarkably honest political opinions that they resonate not because of their rigid rational exposition but on an emotional level. Those tend to be more fruitful as well and I think that's just likability as we recognise something humane.
Reply to Benkei To be frank, those comments were made against Maw, who himself is one of the most pretentious posters on this forum, frequently making posts containing nothing but insults.
Reply to Agustino I suspect there's selection bias in play there. While it's quite possible he's insulted you, my experience is he's knowledgeable and takes the time out to explain things. His responses to the misrepresentations I linked were tempered as well. So not sharing the conclusion based on my view.
I suspect there's selection bias in play there. While it's quite possible he's insulted you, my experience is he's knowledgeable and takes the time out to explain things. His responses to the misrepresentations I linked were tempered as well. So not sharing the conclusion based on my view.
It's not about insulting me, but literarily almost every post of his I read is an insult towards someone he disagrees with. Whether that's Peterson, myself, etc. is less relevant. If you didn't notice this, then I'd recommend a new pair of glasses :kiss:
Reply to Agustino newsflash : other people's experiences are just as valid as yours. I quite frankly care less and less about what you think because you make it clear with every reply you simply don't give a shit what other people think.
Reply to Agustino It's a matter of respect which you don't seem to understand. I acknowledged your view as possibly true for you, I disagreed based on my experience. I'm then told my experiences are basically bullshit because of the wrong glasses. In other words, you don't respect my views and that translates in not caring.
Reply to Benkei I don't see how my reply was disrespectful. If I said that to any of my friends, they wouldn't be pissed off. I insult my (male) friends for fun, not seriously, when we disagree.
Instead of getting defensive, have a look at Maw's comment history. You'll soon realize the implication of your claim - that most (or even a large proportion) of his posts contain insults - is just wrong.
That's the third time I quoted that. I know, because I went over to PF yesterday and retrieved all my old posts. (Now got two word files of 500 and 300 pages long to contend with.)
Reply to Baden I did the same with a number of 180 Proof's posts, my posts, and intelligent posts from other members. It's a shame that a large number of pre-2014 posts are unavailable.
PC cult. Neo-marxists cultural revolution. Oppressive left.
Did you have an orgasm just now?
Yes. And seeing as I am a transgender African Chinese deaf tour guide, it was even better. If you want to consider how it felt, think about a safe space that you never have to leave. Just magical.
CuddlyHedgehogMarch 07, 2018 at 23:24#1598060 likes
I watched The Godfather for the first time in a decade, and watched Part 2 for the first time. Both are fantastic movies. I slightly prefer Part 1 over Part 2 though.
CuddlyHedgehogMarch 08, 2018 at 00:38#1598170 likes
That's the third time I quoted that. I know, because I went over to PF yesterday and retrieved all my old posts. (Now got two word files of 500 and 300 pages long to contend with.)
How did you manage that? I have tried a few times using several different methods and gotten nothing.
I registered for a new account using the Google option (the only way that worked) and then searched for my old handle and went through the posts page by page. Very time-consuming but it worked.
I seem to recall that some of the Leavers were banned or deleted or something. Last time I checked I couldn't get in. Got my posts file before that though.
How many do you have? Just try them all in the Forgotten Password page until you hit the right one.
I may have changed email for fear of it being sold when Paul transferred ownership :rofl: - if I did that, it might just be a random email that I don't remember. Oh nevermind - I seem not to have changed it and got the right one now. Well, they say they sent the password, but no password arrived yet. Not in junk, not in inbox, not anywhere :confused:
I seem to recall that some of the Leavers were banned or deleted or something. Last time I checked I couldn't get in. Got my posts file before that though.
Only the moderators for the most part, which seems fair. I'm surprised they didn't ask you mods to sign agreements that you won't leave for a period after the sale. That's what I would have done.
If it was me negotiating, I'd ask the owner to negotiate with the mods and get them to sign the agreement (I don't care if he offers them part of the money, or puts some conditions in place for me that the mods want me to follow, etc.) before I give him the money. It's stupid to buy any kind of operation without making sure that the key people that make it work remain in their positions for at least 1-2 years.
In fact, the old owner remaining for 1-2 years would be one of the key conditions of the sale. He would be responsible to make sure that the site works securely, etc. before those responsibilities can be transferred. Maybe part of the money would be released only after this period. There's a name for this in the business, but I forgot. Nevermind, it's earn-out payments.
In fact, the old owner remaining for 1-2 years would be one of the key conditions of the sale. He would be responsible to make sure that the site works securely, etc. before those responsibilities can be transferred.
Paul offered. They ignored him.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 08, 2018 at 12:59#1599820 likes
It's stupid to buy any kind of operation without making sure that the key people that make it work remain in their positions for at least 1-2 years.
Unless, unless the purchase was meant to fail so they could take it as a tax write off against money they were probably hustling off of someone else.
Come on...Agustino, surely you have had to "offset" financial gains somewhere in your self employed travels.
Unless, unless the purchase was meant to fail so they could take it as a tax write off against money they were probably hustling off of someone else.
Come on...Agustino, surely you have had to "offset" financial gains somewhere in your self employed travels.
That's why I make use of accountants :wink: . And actually, right now I'm running all my businesses through LLCs for some similar reasons.
Though to be honest my grasp of accounting principles is terrible. I literarily have no clue what my accountants are doing which is why I got in trouble awhile ago :rofl: I just know how to get clients and do projects, and if that goes right, then everything else tends to take care of itself.
Having said that, now I'm not sure that this works as you describe it. So you say that they're buying the website for 20K to later write that off as a loss and offset some other taxes on some other financial gains that they have. So the 20K can be used to offset potential tax losses larger than 20K? Because otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to spend the 20K (which is itself an immediate loss).
There's also no evidence that they intended to do this with the website. In the beginning, they even made accounts and introduced themselves. So I highly doubt that people make terrible investments that can never be recovered (basically throwing that money away) to offset financial gains. They even spent time to monetize the website and introduced ads.
So you say that they're buying the website for 20K to later write that off as a loss and offset some other taxes on some other financial gains that they have. So the 20K can be used to offset potential tax losses larger than 20K?
You understand more than you give yourself credit for. :wink:
Example: An owner of a franchise that owns 12 year round permeant brick and mortar stores. During that tax year the brick and mortar stores are profitable and the owners are required to pay 35% income tax on the profit on their stores. If they only maintained the brick and mortar stores and nothing else and they had a good enough year, the profit will be taxed at 35% or higher.
Now take those same 12 profitable brick and mortar stores and add in three seasonal "Kiosks" in three different malls and figure in those profits or losses and the final profit might not be the same. If the Kiosks are profitable okay but if they are a loss? Meaning it cost more to rent the spaces, staff the kiosks, purchase the computer equipment to run the kiosks, the transfers to and from the 12 year round stores and the closing of the kiosks at the end of the season, the inventorying all the product coming back into the brick and mortar stores and you my friend have made a risky investment.
In fact,operating those three seasonal kiosks might just eat into the 'profit' of your 12 brick and mortar stores and if they are a big enough loss, they might drop you back down below the next tax bracket, maybe below the 35% tax bracket. Business loss can be a personal gain.
CuddlyHedgehogMarch 08, 2018 at 15:17#1600530 likes
if they are a big enough loss, they might drop you back down below the next tax bracket, maybe below the 35% tax bracket. Business loss can be a personal gain.
But business accounts are independent of your personal tax accounts? No?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Okay I see. But from what I understand this would only work if it moved the business from a higher tax bracket to a lower one, in such a fashion that the cost of generating those losses does not outweigh the difference in taxes paid from one scenario to the other.
In all other cases, it doesn't really make sense. Yes, you can use write offs in case a risky investment doesn't work out, but you wouldn't do it just for the purpose of write-offs, knowing full well in advance that it would be bad.
In the case of the 12 profitable B&M stores - suppose you have the option of running your kiosks profitably or purposefully making them come out as losing money. Unless it moved you from one tax bracket to another, or the capital costs are justified even in the future (you can make profitable use of that equipment later on) there would be no reason to run them negatively. Suppose my profit would be X without the kiosks, and it would be X-C with the kiosks. Suppose the profit from running the kiosks profitably would be X+P. Then clearly your EAT will be 65%*(X-C) vs 65%*(X+P) (assuming a 35% tax) -> the last one is clearly preferable because it's greater.
I asked because it's a general social skill to follow up with a question like "what sort of business do you do" when the person is talking about his business. It shows an interest in the person. Feel free to use it next time you're talking to someone.
Anyway, you bring it up all the time, and it would be interesting to know more precisely what you do, although maybe this violates the anonymity boundary that keeps us all safe at night.
Yeah I think it's fair that we know something about @Agustino's work, because he won't stop harping on about it. That and the magnificent jets of urine he can produce owing to his oh-so-admirable avoidance of masturbation (I'm not making this up).
I asked because it's a general social skill to follow up with a question like "what sort of business do you do" when the person is talking about his business. It shows an interest in the person.
Sure, but the reason I asked you why was because I've publicly said what my business was several times on the forum. Just like you've said that you're a lawyer. So if I were to ask you what you do now, after all this time, you'd probably find that a bit strange no? :sweat:
Anyway, you bring it up all the time, and it would be interesting to know more precisely what you do, although maybe this violates the anonymity boundary that keeps us all safe at night.
Privacy is one thing, I wouldn't want to say the name of my company or describe my business model for example. Describing my business model in its details is dangerous - it invites competition. I know several online business owners who will not even state their industry. Even the lawyer I hired recently, whom I had to detail my business model to, I made them sign an NDA.
But regardless of that, the other thing is that I'm not sure what you'd want to know about my business apart from my industry. If you have any specific questions I might be able to answer.
I wouldn't want to say the name of my company or describe my business model for example. Describing my business model in its details is dangerous - it invites competition.
This is pretty baffling to me, because I used to work at an advertising agency that specialized in website development, marketing, etc. and I can't think of any proprietary business model within that industry that would deter you from sharing your website or company name. How do you advertise yourself? How do you show your product set and services to customers? How do potential clients know how to contact you?
I can't think of any proprietary business model within that industry that would deter you from keeping your website or company name a secret.
Well, there are several reasons:
1. Privacy (including not linking the opinions I express here with my opinions as a person)
2. I don't try to keep my company information secret - for people to whom this is relevant information. You're not my customer, you didn't get in touch with me through another website, I see no reason to give you access to such information, especially publicly.
3. Business models don't need to be "proprietary" not to be shared. Maybe they don't teach you this at Harvard, but you certainly learn it on the street building a business. If you knew someone's business model, then you could run the business yourself. I spent time and worked very hard to gain the knowledge that I have. I'm not planning to give it away for free.
For example, awhile ago I asked Posty how he and a friend of his who run a supplement store generate their leads. I didn't get an answer to this day, and I totally understand that. They worked to build the business and they don't feel like this is something that can be shared. Good for them, they deserve to keep it to themselves!
CuddlyHedgehogMarch 08, 2018 at 19:41#1601730 likes
I thought you said you were a civil engineer @Agustino
Reply to Agustino As I said, I don't see how any web development or marketing business model could be so secretive that you can't even provide a website, or even a name. At the very minimum, you can advertise the services you provide, and I imagine it would be pretty standard digital marketing practices that can range from SEO, or programmatic display, or brand strategy, social media management, etc. Things like these can be advertised on a website with out sacrificing privacy, because everyone does them, and you don't need to explain a propriety business model, whatever that might be, and either way you can couch it in vague terms or a broad brush, like "using our propriety business model we target your potential customers better than competitors" or some crap like that. A company business model, or other granular propriety details don't need to be outline on the website.
If you don't want to share your company because of personal privacy, then that's totally fine, I understand that. But I'm not buying these other excuses. They don't make sense from a customer acquisition standpoint.
Reply to Agustino Except you aren't "targeting" us by merely sharing a company name. That doesn't cost you any CPI or CPV because it's not coming out of your advertising budget.
Reply to Maw lol, obviously it doesn't cost me anything, but there's likely no gain from it. You don't do things just cause they're free. It's just wasted effort - the only 'good' if you can call it that would be the backlink, but from a philosophy forum even that won't be very great.
Reply to fdrake As I said, if @Agustino doesn't want to share it for personal private reasons, I totally understand that. Of course he doesn't have to share it with us if he doesn't want to. I'm just saying his other reasons for secrecy don't make a lick of sense. Besides, he mentions his business non-stop so I figured he'd be happy to provide a name or something, and given that I more or less work in that industry , I was genuinely curious.
Yeah I understand. The number of times I've tried to manoeuvre someone into doing something they don't want to through reason is pretty high, so I'm a hypocrite here. Even if you see someone's preferences as inconsistent, it isn't nice to inflict/highlight (depending on viewpoint) cognitive dissonance on them for their choices unless it's necessary for some reason. I'm sure you agree with this and I'm preaching to the choir. :)
They are not inconsistent. I have seen no entrepreneur ever advertise their business randomly on the internet on forums that have nothing to do with it. If this was a marketing forum, sure, quite likely. But it's not. Maw is just talking crap.
That's a general rule of thumb. Don't advertise to people where there's no gain (since they don't need your services, etc.). Doesn't matter that it's free. Information is only provided if people need it, not absent of need. Maw isn't my customer, he's not a lead, not a prospect, not anything. Moreover, he may even be a competitor (and if there was a way to block website, etc. just from competitors, yes, I would definitely do it).
I didn't claim your preferences were inconsistent. I claimed Maw saw them as inconsistent and was attempting to make you do something you didn't want to through reasoning about it. It doesn't matter if you're being inconsistent or not, you don't wanna do it, and there's no good reason to press the issue.
You live in Eastern Europe correct? For several reasons, I assume your business is fairly small, so your clientele is likely local, especially if they have to go through a 3rd party website to get in contact with you.
Reply to CuddlyHedgehog Yeah yeah yeah, I'm not a successful entrepreneur, fine, I don't care what you think :P - not gonna change the facts.
I talk about business here because philosophy requires me to reflect on life. So that's necessary. I also talk about it to help others who want to start businesses, I think the world needs more entrepreneurs not less. I don't need to advertise here to get clients. That's silly.
I mean I get it, I wouldn't want my clients to know I support constitutional monarchy either.
:rofl: Privacy stuff is more relevant not for business (in business it doesn't really matter that much what your personal beliefs are), but - if, say - I ever decide to run for public office then certain things could be problematic - especially since some of the things I say on this forum are experimental, and not what I actually believe (most often this is not the case, but I do sometimes argue for positions that I don't support) - so it wouldn't give a fair image.
You can be given the sword Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake, signifying by divine providence, that you, Agustino, are to be king.
Now personally, I don't think strange women lying in ponds distributing swords provides a basis for a system of government, but it's another strategy for sure.
You can be given the sword Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake, signifying by divine providence, that you, Agustino, are to be king.
Now personally, I don't think strange women lying in ponds distributing swords provides a basis for a system of government, but it's another strategy for sure.
:rofl: LOL! You have an imaginative mind, I must say :lol:
But we need to be a little bit more pragmatic than that. You cannot change the system of government without first wielding power yourself.
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur was to carry Excalibur.
That is why I am your king!
Are you implying that one of us would use info like this to hunt you down and murder you at night for your witty posts? :sad:
Are you asking me?
If so no - that wouldn't be a worry.
unenlightenedMarch 09, 2018 at 11:08#1603960 likes
Arthur was already king when he was given Excalibur. It was the sword in the stone, and the inscription on the stone that legitimised his authority. Facts on the ground and access to a good weapon are what make kings.
Listen -- pulling swords out of rocks is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical strongman ceremony.
unenlightenedMarch 09, 2018 at 11:28#1604010 likes
Reply to Michael The mandate of the masses is always for bread and circuses, and degeneration. The intelligence of a mass is the average intelligence of the individuals divided by the number of them. A decently carved rock is much better electoral system, because far more thought goes into it.
@Maw - I meant to ask you this - are you one of those leftists who never gave Trump a chance to win? :lol: And then were like :OOOOOOOO when you saw the election results? :rofl:
The democracy (I'm assuming) you advocate is imperialism in fancy dress.
I'm advocating for an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We'd take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs and by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major foreign policies.
Few people believed that Trump would win, including many on the right,
Well I believed Trump would win, as @Baden can testify (I still tease him about it)! Although there is a difference between believing Trump will likely lose (which wasn't an unreasonable position), and believing that it is effectively impossible for Trump to win (as many leftists believed - and that was absolutely irrational).
I actually have little respect for many of today's intellectuals, precisely because they are gadflies on the establishment and nothing more. Most do not pursue truth anymore - with the exception of a few like Taleb, or Réne Girard or even Peter Thiel.
So you're advocating that we have a society ran by a bunch of part time jacks of all trades, masters of nothing? that take it in turns to attend bi-weekly meetings lol
Massachusetts towns are governed by town meeting/selectmen governments. As time has gone on and government has gotten more complicated, it has often become unwieldy. Additional layers of hierarchy have been added - representative town meeting membership, town committees, separate government for schools, town administrators. If a town gets big enough, it can become a city and have a mayor and city council.
Going to a town meeting in a small town is an eye opening experience. It can be frustrating as debates bog down in history, personal animosity, and petty issues. On the other hand, after sitting for several hours listening to really intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable mechanics, business owners, homeowners, and landscapers you get a feel for the real power of democracy. People governing themselves.
So you don't really want a society ran on the basis of the red line in this image: ...
because obviously any one who has the opportunity to run a society based on the blue line can just completely mow us down lol
Can't tell if you're being facetious.
This popped to mind as peripherally related. I recently read "What is Life" written by Edwin Schrodinger in the mid 1940s. He, the very well-known physicist, wrote about genetics, heredity, and the nature of a genetic code a decade before DNA was discovered. From what I understand, his book was very influential. It's also wonderful. He writes so clearly, colloquially, and humorously. My point - generalism has a lot to offer. People who can see the bigger picture can change the way people think about important issues.
"Thinking has interests that do not coincide with those of living; indeed, they can and have been pitted against the latter. ... Philosophy should be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem".
"Thinking has interests that do not coincide with those of living; indeed, they can and have been pitted against the latter. ... Philosophy should be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem".
Maybe, but then this sort of thinking you talk of is of no interest to the living. I am a living being, I understand and feel myself as a living being. I am concerned with life, and thought is of no use to me if it doesn't relate to life. If thought doesn't make me more capable, if it doesn't make me enjoy life more, if it doesn't make me more alive, then why do it? Reason is in this sense always a servant, always responsible merely for providing the means to reach life's ends.
:lol: - there is one sense in which Plato would agree with what you said in the previous thread, since philosophy is the love of wisdom, not its attainment - there is always more to explore in the mystery. This is contrary to totalizing systems, like Hegel's, where the goal becomes the definitive attainment of wisdom as such.
What is the body? If the body represents that through which one acts & lives in the world, then absolutely a slave to the body, how could it be otherwise? One cannot even begin to think without such a body.
:lol: - there is one sense in which Plato would agree with what you said in the previous thread, since philosophy is the love of wisdom, not its attainment - there is always more to explore in the mystery. This is contrary to totalizing systems, like Hegel's, where the goal becomes the definitive attainment of wisdom as such.
It's nice that you read it that way! Most people read the notion of 'love of wisdom' as those who strive to attain it; but ????? (philos) is friend - the philosopher is a friend of wisdom, wisdom's fellow-traveller, doing what friends do: provoke it, annoy it, tags wisdom in memes. That said, I begrudgingly agree that Plato was right about this, which is rare, because I think the best way to go about doing philosophy today is to take what Plato said, then do the opposite of that, then set it on fire, just in case you get any Plato juice on you.
What is the body? If the body represents that through which one acts & lives in the world, then absolutely a slave to the body, how could it be otherwise? One cannot even begin to think without such a body.
Yes yes but who said anything about being nice to it? But don't get me going otherwise I'll start talking about transcendence-in-immanence and nobody likes that.
because I think the best way to go about doing philosophy today is to take what Plato said, then do the opposite of that, then set it on fire, just in case you get any Plato juice on you.
lol - I approach philosophy differently than you. I'm interested in philosophy because I'm interested in life, and I noticed in my teens that philosophy helped me become more capable at whatever I was trying to do. So I've stuck with it ever since, and it has helped me in most things, including in business. So I always see philosophy through those lenses.
unenlightenedMarch 10, 2018 at 10:51#1607080 likes
Reply to StreetlightX I've been reading your recommendations, and getting confused as usual.
And I have a question: why do neo-marxist postmodern traitors so universally suffer from suffixtualizationalistic syndrome? The way they nounalise verbs adverbialistically, and vice versa don't half make it heavy going. Why is it not possible to raise a problem, without problematising it?
And I have a question: why do neo-marxist postmodern traitors so universally suffer from suffixtualizationalistic syndrome? The way they nounalise verbs adverbialistically, and vice versa don't half make it heavy going. Why is it not possible to raise a problem, without problematising it?
I blame the Germans. German grammar has a quirk in which you can compound words like you wouldn't believe, so you get words like Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften which means 'insurance companies providing legal protection' or [i]Siebentausendzweihundertvierundfünfzig[/I], which is literally the number 7254. Now you can imagine what happens when you start writing philosophy with access to a grammar like this. And further, what happens when you try and translate these words into English, or French. This isn't the only reason, of course, but it's one of them. Also fucking Hegel.
There's a joke here about compounding the problem, but I'm much too tired to make it.
unenlightenedMarch 10, 2018 at 11:58#1607270 likes
Reply to StreetlightX Ah, yes. Blaming the Germans has got to be the right way to go. But the Americans must have something to do with it too, not speaking properly and not even knowing that it's zeds they're misusing, not 'zees'.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 10, 2018 at 12:11#1607300 likes
It is interesting how many Rottweiler's names begin with "Z" and are named after Mythological characters, Greek ones at that. Can someone explain this phenomenon?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 10, 2018 at 12:17#1607310 likes
Can you name the song based on the following lyrics without any help from the Internet
"I pulled in to Nazareth, was feeling 'bout half past dead
I just need some place where I can lay my head
'Hey mister, can you tell me where a man might find a bed?''
He just grinned and shook my hand, 'No'' was all he said..."
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 10, 2018 at 12:25#1607350 likes
@Agustino@Baden
Don't you think if Trump pulls off a game plan for the denuclearization of North Korea that he would be as eligible for the Noble Peace Prize as much as Obama was for....what did he win the Nobel Prize for again?
@Baden
Make sure you wipe the coffee off your screen before responding, electronics are not fond of hot caffeine. :gasp: :lol: :rofl:
Don't you think if Trump pulls off a game plan for the denuclearization of North Korea that he would be as eligible for the Noble Peace Prize as much as Obama was for....what did he win the Nobel Prize for again?
I think if he does that successfully, then he SHOULD get the Nobel Peace Prize. But I doubt he'll actually get it - the Academic elites hate Trump.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff
Well, Obama clearly didn't deserve the prize at the time and did nothing afterwards to justify it either, so it wouldn't be hard for Trump or anyone else to be as eligible.
As for a game plan, I don't think Trump has one. That may be why it seems to be working. But if war on the Korean peninsula can be avoided, by all means throw whatever silverware you want at him.
(You need to work harder to shock me. Maybe suggest we give the prize to Wayne La Pierre? ;) )
It's hard to have a ready-made plan when you're negotiating. All you need to know is things you can compromise on, and things you can't compromise on, that are your objectives in the negotiations. And then, as Trump says, "we'll see what happens".
"I pulled in to Nazareth, was feeling 'bout half past dead
I just need some place where I can lay my head
'Hey mister, can you tell me where a man might find a bed?''
He just grinned and shook my hand, 'No'' was all he said..."
Well, Obama clearly didn't deserve the prize at the time and did nothing afterwards to justify it either, so it wouldn't be hard for Trump or anyone else to be as eligible.
I agree Obama didn't deserve it when he got it. If he did deserve it, it was for the Iran deal with a side of Cuba. On the other hand, some of the things he decided in the Middle East count against him.
I blame the Germans. German grammar has a quirk in which you can compound words like you wouldn't believe, so you get words like Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften which means 'insurance companies providing legal protection' or Siebentausendzweihundertvierundfünfzig, which is literally the number 7254. Now you can imagine what happens when you start writing philosophy with access to a grammar like this. And further, what happens when you try and translate these words into English, or French. This isn't the only reason, of course, but it's one of them. Also fucking Hegel.
Love German. Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung - Speed limit. My favorite - Fausthandschuh, which literally means "fist hand shoe", meaning "mittens."
Reply to Noble Dust That was an obvious one, but I didn't remember the song name either. I think the name is something like "I Want to Fuck You Like an Animal," but I'm not sure.
Oh wow, real talk, I was just thinking of that tune recently, because I witnessed a soul-crushing cover version of that at a show I worked recently by a brass band, and I couldn't remember who it was. Thanks for the post.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 11, 2018 at 13:40#1610390 likes
Sometimes I think I can read minds; but, no I don't think she knows this. I'll give it a look sometime. Kind of stranded here on my own island. Looking for someone to be in company with.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 11, 2018 at 13:59#1610490 likes
Reply to Posty McPostface I realize you feel like you may be the only one on Earth that feels the way you do but you would be mistaken. All of us, most of us, feel that way sometimes and a lot of us feel that way a lot. We are not alone if you are here for me and I am here for you and together, together, all of us are here for one another, we will make it though anything. If there is one thing we all share in common here on the forums is that we are all on this ride called life and all of us will face the ups and downs, curves and straights, it's just a matter of sticking together. Ya know?
{{{{{Posty}}}}}} <<<< online hugg
A question from one to another, have you ever let your need to "wallow" play it's way out?
I learned a tool in CBT that taught me to set aside an hour at the end of every day as "Worry time" because worrying about something I cannot control is a nasty habit of mine.
You start your day telling yourself that any worry that comes into your mind has a time and a place to address it but this is not the time, rather set it aside till my "Worry time" which was at 6pm. It was hard at first because of all of the worry I had running though my head and to let it go till the end of the day seemed risky, as though my worry in the morning would be gone by night, no such luck. I ruminate on long term situations, usually out of my control worry.
Till I learned this gem of "Worry time" which you could use for "Wallow time".
I chose 6pm and everyday for an hour, I had to force myself to sit down at the kitchen table with no other distractions with a yellow legal pad and a pen. For that hour, I had to list every worry that I had through out the day until I had exhausted all the worries, then I could get up. But as soon as I heard another worry come into my head, I had to sit down and add it to the list. Repeating that through out the one hour of "worry time" that I had to write them down.
I had to do this for about two weeks to convince myself of the ability to set aside a worry when it came into my head. I had to tell myself "No, you have a time set aside to worry, now is not that time so don't let it occupy your daily life." What I found was that as worried as I had allowed myself to get, before implementing "Worry time" was a lot more rumination than individual worries. This became obvious as when I sat down, I would write down every worry I could remember and what would have occupied my mind all day was less than a half a legal page long. Actually I am being generous, it was like a quarter of a page. The first few days there was a lot of up and down, forgetting this stress or that and I was surprised when I read back over the stresses of the past few days, during the "Worry time" and found a pattern emerging. There was very little variation of my worries from day to day, based upon my own notes that exhausted my worries, in fact they were almost identical.
Once I saw that for a week my "Worry time" and notes didn't change much, I no longer wondered what it was I was worried about all day, invading my every moment of quiet time in my head, it was almost all the same set of worries.
I know this is not your first rodeo and I know you know how rumination can run your daily thinking, but this tool, this movable mind fencing, will corral those thoughts into a circle of fencing and will slowly get smaller till you get those worry/wallow horses back into the barn where they belong. Ride them daily but only during your designated time, because as sure as the sun rises, they will be waiting for you when you return from a wallow free day in life.
It was not a just war, if such a thing is possible,
Yet my Uncle left Loyola University in his Senior year to enlist.... it confuses me...
I can tell you that both of my children have made it abundantly clear that they will not fight another war, on another countries soil. They would only enlist if it was fighting on USA soil.
In the same breath, both children have made it clear that they do not want to remain in America. The last 20 years has not been a very good representation of what America can be, I will give you that, but what I try to explain to them is that my Great Grands came over through Elis island from over seas because of what they had there and what they saw in America. I ask my boys to give it a little more time before they bail on being American....time will tell.
My youngest is wanting to move to New Zealand and my oldest to the Netherlands.
Where did I go wrong? NicK says we should see this as a reflection on our parenting, that our children are stable enough to want to adventure out on their own, not just in the USA but I worry....
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 11, 2018 at 15:04#1610880 likes
Before I start labeling issues with terms derived from psychiatry, I think there is the psychological issue of, well, feelings of helplessness. Yeah, I know, that's just called depression another way. This might sound odd; but, I like my depression. It reaffirms my (rather plain and unfulfilling life). I don't like change and if I can I will shirk from it when possible. So, there's that issue with self esteem and confidence or lack-thereof.
If I could put this another way, my depression has turned narcissistic, as I am going on a limb here and assuming that a great deal of depression is narcisstic. Take for example the following thought dialog that may play through other people's heads also.
*Oh, darn, I feel depressed again.*
That's alright, it's not you, it's the world. You can't change the world, so your depression is justified.
*Yeah! Fuck the world. I hate it. I'm just going to spend my day finding more justification (read rationalizations) for my loathing of others and the world.*
Good, just don't turn the feeling on yourself and let the world get to you. Remember, it's not your fault the world is fucked up the way it is, so you're in the all clear
*You bet ya, I don't feel that terrible after all now that I know it's not my fault; but, other people and their attitudes of malice towards others, carelessness, and selfishness.*
And, so the attitude of a person itself turns sour and the sulking and wallowing continues.
See, the problem is that one's whole world view gets distorted, so there really is no fencing away of these thoughts since they pervade one's entire persona and affect towards anything not including one's self. I haven't read a term for it in CBT; but, I'd call it deflecting and/or a profound dissociation from the problems of the world. This is my problem, not yours; but, in my hasty over-generalization about the world, I have thrown out whatever good is in the world just so that I can justify my shit attitude about it.
Now, a lot of grandiosity arises because of this attitude. One sees one's self as above the problems and drama of the world. To some degree that's a good attitude, why should I care about the starving child in Africa or the gassed child in Syria due to Putin's supply of chemical warfare agents to the Assad regime? I mean, I would be a nervous wreak if I cared about all these things, right?
A question from one to another, have you ever let your need to "wallow" play it's way out?
I learned a tool in CBT that taught me to set aside an hour at the end of every day as "Worry time" because worrying about something I cannot control is a nasty habit of mine.
I like this. I think I'll try it. If nothing else, it'll give me something to do when there's noting good on TPF. A verse I like from Tao Te Ching:
If you want to shrink something,
you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something,
you must first allow it to flourish.
If you want to take something,
you must first allow it to be given.
This is called the subtle perception
of the way things are.
My youngest is wanting to move to New Zealand and my oldest to the Netherlands.
Where did I go wrong? NicK says we should see this as a reflection on our parenting, that our children are stable enough to want to adventure out on their own, not just in the USA but I worry....
The two best feelings in the world 1) When my children like each other. See each other. and 2) When my children are fearless in going after what they want. I'll add another 3) When my children are stronger and better than I am.
I'm currently trying to analyze the mechanisms by which depression feeds on itself. If anyone has any books or knowledge on the matter, I would greatly appreciate that.
I mean, depression has to feed on itself, otherwise it would not be nearly as widespread a phenomena as it currently is.
Yes, I'm aware of social constructs as described by Marxist psychologists; but, I'm interested in depression as viewed as an individual derived phenomena.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 11, 2018 at 16:30#1611050 likes
That's alright, it's not you, it's the world. You can't change the world, so your depression is justified.
I apologize for my brief response as my kids are both home, which is rare :wink: but what I quoted above would appear to be a flaw in logic, imho you almost nailed it but it is upside down in a big way.
My feeling is: "That's okay, that is THEIR problem, NOT mine." It serves me because the only fair expectations I can impose are those I impose on my self. To place an expectation on someone else isn't fair nor is rarely successful. Instead, I try to not set expectations of others and I am often gently surprised and rarely disappointed. If I find myself being resentful, I have to go back and see where it was that I set up an expectation for them and try to remind myself not to fall so easily in expecting something from another.
Something to think about that often gives me strength to recalibrate my perspective is to ask myself:
Do the people around me celebrate me or tolerate me?
Blunt question, blunt answer so it is a good thing that I am asking that of myself. And if the answer is tolerating me? Show me the door please and I am taking my shit with me.
With a closing comment of sincerity "I wish you all the Karma life has to share with you."
Smile and move on.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiffIt's subject to interpretation of course, with it being written during the Vietnam war and reference to the East giving it a link to an unjust war, but a clearer literal meaning links it to unjust imprisonment and an unjust justice system, which was just as much center stage during that era as well.
I'd describe it abstractly as a release from pain, but through death, making it sad, like a funeral song. Under that reading, the sun rising backwards is an apocolyptic reference that arises from injustice, with redemption only through death. That also fits with the gospel like tone of the song -all biblical allusions.
Many interpretations I suppose, but that's what sets Dylan apart from us mere mortals.
unenlightenedMarch 11, 2018 at 16:46#1611090 likes
Great. Thanks. Well worth the read. Considering I've been reading through Jared Diamond's work and David Graeber's it's an excellent summary of their interfaces and disagreements.
Personally, I have found mindfulness/meditation/contemplation very helpful when I was depressed/anxious. It is the only way that I have found that truly addresses the problem at its roots, and gets through all the garbage and nonsense the fastest.
All illnesses of the mind are... of the mind. Therefore anything that takes you out of the mind, takes you out of the condition of illness. It is the mind itself that produces the illness. This was a very important point for me to understand, that one could not overcome the condition from within the condition itself - one must leap out of it. There is no "step-by-step" procedure that can be followed - the cure cannot be "step-by-step", but must rather be a leap, a sudden jump to a different level.
Of course, depression feeds on itself - it is in the nature of the mind to go on and on and on - and never finish.
Take for example the following thought dialog that may play through other people's heads also.
*Oh, darn, I feel depressed again.*
That's alright, it's not you, it's the world. You can't change the world, so your depression is justified.
*Yeah! Fuck the world. I hate it. I'm just going to spend my day finding more justification (read rationalizations) for my loathing of others and the world.*
Good, just don't turn the feeling on yourself and let the world get to you. Remember, it's not your fault the world is fucked up the way it is, so you're in the all clear
*You bet ya, I don't feel that terrible after all now that I know it's not my fault; but, other people and their attitudes of malice towards others, carelessness, and selfishness.*
And, so the attitude of a person itself turns sour and the sulking and wallowing continues.
There is no escape from within this game. You must rather refuse to play the game, and strive to gain cognitive distance from it. Not disputation - disputation merely continues to feed it with energy. Everytime you follow your depressive and ruminative thoughts, you give them strength, you feed them. And everytime you anchor your awareness in something else, whether that is the breath, or a prayer word, etc. you take power away from them.
You have to realise that there are no steps that can be taken to escape from depression - it is a closed circle, always inevitably looping back on itself. The only way out is not through any horizontal interaction with it from within - but vertically, a leap out of it. It is much like seeing a vase as yellow, and then suddenly seeing it as red. That is the sort of change you're looking for. It's not a change in the facts, it's a change in your perception - and it can only be sudden.
And think about it for a moment. You should not waste your time solving particular problems that the mind throws at you. That people are mean, selfish, etc. and that's why you are depressed - that's a particular problem. Even if you solve it, the underlying pattern of your mind, which is diseased, will throw at you another particular problem. These particular problems are merely instances of an underlying diseased process. Mindfulness will enable you to see particular thoughts as manifestations of deeper habits & subtle patterns of thought. And then you will see how those thoughts & patterns are the result of your conditioning. And once you see that, then you are already beyond your conditioning - you have established a vantage point that can look at it from outside of it.
This was a good book for me: https://www.amazon.com/Wherever-You-There-Are-Mindfulness/dp/1401307787
I have my qualms with CBT as it is professed nowadays. There's a cognitive distortion that is very insidious and doesn't get addressed as much as it should, and is in need of treatment by another rather than doing it all by yourself. In fact this cognitive distortion is the manifestation of a deeper problem and, in my opinion, can't be taught all by yourself, which is the liberating aspect of CBT. What cognitive distortion you may ask? Well, it's mental filtering. It's already manifest or is the culmination of all other cognitive distortions, and pervades one's thoughts and personality.
How do you treat it? By mindfulness meditation or by a radical shift in perceiving one's self in relation to the world. This is where therapy is needed at least at the first stage of treating neurosis/depression/anxiety. But, instead many people choose not to engage in therapy, thinking issues can be thought away in some mechanistic manner.
"First thing I remember was asking papa, why
For there were many things I didn't know
And daddy always smiled and took me by the hand
Saying, someday you'll understand
Well, I'm here to tell you now, each and every mother's son
That you better learn it fast, you better learn it young
'Cause someday never comes"
Yesterday I was reading a story about a pussycat having kittens to my 2-year old daughter - and it was dreadfully boring.
So I changed one kitten into a dragon, who burned down the shed. All the kittens and the two kids had to run for their lives. The first knight that showed up got toasted by the dragon's fiery breath. Then Knight Vesper showed up. She dodged the dragon's breath, rolled on the side and hit it with her magic sword. The dragon got turned back into a kitten and they hugged happily ever after. The End.
Yesterday I was reading a story about a pussycat having kittens to my 2-year old daughter - and it was dreadfully boring.
So I changed one kitten into a dragon, who burned down the shed. All the kittens and the two kids had to run for their lives. The first knight that showed up got toasted by the dragon's fiery breath. Then Knight Vesper showed up. She dodged the dragon's breath, rolled on the side and hit it with her magic sword. The dragon got turned back into a kitten and they hugged happily ever after. The End.
Knight Vesper is a girl? :confused:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 12, 2018 at 12:42#1612470 likes
Can you guess the song based on the lyrics below without any help from the Internet?
"Now she's walking through the clouds
With a circus mind
That's running wild
Butterflies and zebras
Moonbeams and fairytales
All she ever thinks about is riding with the wind"
Okay....but what about the "Knight" part? Is there such a thing as a female Knight? I am thinking maybe Benkei should stick to the script or let Mom read the story about how the Princess Vesper saves the day!
Okay....but what about the "Knight" part? Is there such a thing as a female Knight? I am thinking maybe Benkei should stick to the script or let Mom read the story about how the Princess Vesper saves the day!
Dragons? That's fine. But female knights? Outrageous!
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 12, 2018 at 12:53#1612540 likes
Same birthday as my Dads....an Aries...
You can keep it a secret but I can tell you that if it isn't another girl, your story about Knight Vespa coming in to the save the day is gonna bite you in the arse!
You can keep it a secret but I can tell you that if it isn't another girl, your story about Knight Vespa coming in to the save the day is gonna bite you in the arse!
Why? And it's Vesper, like the star not a scootmobile. :lol:
Why? And it's Vesper, like the star not a scootmobile. :lol:
:rofl: Sorry, Vesper. :lol:
If you have a boy and you are reading him the story the way it is written, your daughter will be quick to correct you as to how the story goes because the improvised stories are the ones kids love and remember.
And then you are going to have to explain to your son how you changed the gender of the hero to fit the story for his sister and .....here is the quandary: who is the real hero Dad? The man or the woman?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 12, 2018 at 13:07#1612670 likes
He will have to change the gender to a male if it is a boy because you want to empower the gender of the child you are reading to, especially if it is a made up story.
No?
You said "you are going to have to explain to your son how you changed the gender of the hero to fit the story for his sister". I'm trying to point out that he didn't change the gender of the hero because there was no original story of a male knight killing a dragon. The original story was just about kittens.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 12, 2018 at 13:19#1612740 likes
You said "you are going to have to explain to your son how you changed the gender of the hero to fit the story for his sister". I'm trying to point out that he didn't change the gender of the hero because there was no original story of a male knight killing a dragon. The original story was just about kittens
I think I have told you this before but I really need a pocket size version of you to carry in my back pocket. Maybe you could create a "Michael" app that could do the same thing? Logic and critical thinking are my weak points but laughter and love are my strong points. So a critical thinking and logic app would be amazing!
Reply to Michael The story for a boy would involve him slaving away in a kitchen to be then rescued by pure happenstance by a cigar-smoking godfather. And I mean A Marlon Brando with 5 o'clock shade and fairy wings. He's escorted in a limousine that runs on fairy dust, which he'll realise when he's 16 was a code word for cocaïne. He arrives at TAFKAP's palace which is now inhabited by poisonous spidermonkeys that threaten to chew his face off. He challenges them to a dance off and wins. They're sore losers and threaten to still bite him but instead they vent on one of the spidermonkeys that they make fun of, because he only has 2 legs and 2 arms instead of 6 legs and 2 arms and he isn't poisonous. Breakdancing King is like "fuck your ugly ass twitchy spiderfaces" and tells the non-spidermonkey, who's really just an actual monkey, to "roll out". It's all party-hardy from there. The End.
The story for a boy would involve him slaving away in a kitchen to be then rescued by pure happenstance by a cigar-smoking godfather. And I mean A Marlon Brando with 5 o'clock shade and fairy wings. He's escorted in a limousine that runs on fairy dust, which he'll realise when he's 16 was a code word for cocaïne. He arrives at TAFKAP's palace which is now inhabited by poisonous spidermonkeys that threaten to chew his face off. He challenges them to a dance off and wins. They're sore losers and threaten to still bite him but instead they vent on one of the spidermonkeys that they make fun of, because he only has 2 legs and 2 arms instead of 6 legs and 2 arms and he isn't poisonous. Breakdancing King is like "fuck your ugly ass twitchy spiderfaces" and tells the non-spidermonkey, who's really just an actual monkey, to "roll out". It's all party-hardy from there. The End.
Eh, it's not very original. A dragon-slaying knight is far more innovative.
do you all mind me asking what you do for a living?
It is hard to quantify unless my better half asks and then I can come up with a HUGE list of my responsibilities that make up what I do for a living.
I guess I would have to say "Loving and laughter" is what I do for a living. :love: :lol:
What? :roll: Someone has to! :up:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 12, 2018 at 15:06#1613050 likes
Great. Thanks. Well worth the read. Considering I've been reading through Jared Diamond's work and David Graeber's it's an excellent summary of their interfaces and disagreements.
It may be a bit biased in favor of Graeber's view, though (I had inserted an emoji here and the interface deleted the rest of my message)
Thanks to enlightened for this. This piece was very provocative and enlightening. The central idea meshes with some of the core themes in Sterelny's The Evolved Apprentice, which I am currently reading at a rather slow pace.
I think Graeber's view is more likely to be correct, though. In terms of discursive strategy, Graeber's view is a pointing out the limitations of a commonplace one. Namely that we have this logical-historical progression from hunter gatherers to agriculture and only after the advent of agriculture do we end up with complicated societal systems. Those systems are usually given the connotation of suffering from inequality (in some vague sense different from the current one) or consisting of dominance hierarchies (which has unsubstantiated animalistic overtones).
Graeber's rhetorical moves serve to declutter the conceptual landscape.
(1) complicated social hierarchies can occur without agriculture
(2) agriculture can occur without complicated social hierarchies
(3) social hierarchies can be present in highly egalitarian distributions of resources
(4) highly egalitarian (or unequal) distributions of resources can occur without complex hierarchical social systems
In general this is furnished with finding evidence where available and simultaneously showing that there is little evidence for the criticised view. Refutations like that are generally very strong.
Pierre-NormandMarch 13, 2018 at 00:01#1614230 likes
In general this is furnished with finding evidence where available and simultaneously showing that there is little evidence for the criticised view. Refutations like that are generally very strong.
Indeed. I had just finished reading this piece a couple hours ago, and you just provided what seems to me a very nice and accurate summary of his (or their, since David Wengrow is a co-author) arguments and conclusions.
Pierre-NormandMarch 13, 2018 at 00:12#1614250 likes
What do I do when I want to flag a user's name (so that they will receive a notification and there appears a link to their profile) in a new message and I am not quoting from one of their message?
Book clubs for entire books are hard to sustain. We used to do articles here, but even for those, people eventually ran out of steam. We managed to get through Derrida's Voice and Phenomenon (90 or so pages), but by the end it was just like 2 or 3 or us giving it a go. I suggest keeping it to articles for your own sake, but kudos if you have more than the usual motivation!
Also, if you do B&T from scratch, I guarantee that you will get so stuck in exegesis and trying to figure points out you almost certainly wont make it past the first division.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 11:45#1615610 likes
"But I would argue that women are less likely to sit with legs open than men. Men need to not squish the go-nads, so it can be required to give them some space."
I did not wish to derail the "WTF is Gender" thread but I have to say I never thought of men sitting that way for that reason. Frankly, I just thought you males did simply because you could.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 11:54#1615650 likes
It's Little Wing, which reminds me oh too well of someone I once knew.
You got it and set it free. Maybe that is how life is supposed to be?
I am beginning to wonder if that isn't the real lesson in life. Loving enough to let go.
According to Bloomberg, Americans now make up 40 per cent of the Billionaire’s Index by wealth, followed by Asia at a quarter and Europe at 21 per cent. Seven of the 10 richest people on the planet are Americans.
The Independent
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 12:00#1615670 likes
No haha, theres a reason. It can get incredibly uncomfortable when there is a pressing between legs that are too close. and it also becomes incredibly awkward and inappropriate when you try to solve the problem in public. You just end up looking like a weirdo thats way too intimate with parts of the body in public than they should be. So those problems are completely avoided by permitting a certain amount of space.
Maybe you and @Hanover can write a guide for women?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 12:02#1615690 likes
According to Bloomberg, Americans now make up 40 per cent of the Billionaire’s Index by wealth, followed by Asia at a quarter and Europe at 21 per cent. Seven of the 10 richest people on the planet are Americans. The Independent
Maybe so but every "Happy" place on Earth are NOT in America (except for Disney).
Danes have a 'happier' existence, as do the Dutch and the English and and and...oh look a message in a bottle from New Zealand...they too are Happier.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 12:06#1615710 likes
Also I'm rather busy at the moment with uni and my wife and child.
Maybe in the future if time permits, I will do a colab with Hanover on the mechanics of males who open their legs.
I do understand being busy with spouse and family!
If Hanover is willing to share a few more plays from the "Male Playbook of Life" and you explain some of the mechanics, we ladies might begin to learn how to [s]manip[/s]understand you guys. :grin:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 12:11#1615740 likes
We shall revolutionize the world and solve all problems! people will instantly become more empathetic and understanding. We shall unite! and invade Pluto as one chaotically conglomerate species!
I think I need another cup of coffee first :wink:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 12:15#1615750 likes
Can you guess the name of this song based on the lyrics below without the use of the Internet.
"I was down at the New Amsterdam staring at this yellow-haired girl
Mr. Jones strikes up a conversation with this black-haired flamenco dancer
She dances while his father plays guitar
She's suddenly beautiful
We all want something beautiful
I wish I was beautiful..."
Yeah baby!!! This idea really does have some credence since many addicts are more afraid of sobriety than death itself.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 12:33#1615830 likes
As many times as we 'thinkers' talk about firearms and senseless shootings, how the USA should only allow the authorities to have the firearms and not it's general population, I wonder how my fellow 'thinkers' feel about how the high school resource officer acted.
Many, many people including the President have called Officer Peterson a coward. Maybe I am too empathetic, maybe I don't wish to label another, maybe I can understand how no one, no one can know how they are going to behave when an actual crisis unfolds in front of you.
But just the slightest suggestion of the officer being anything less than a coward seems to not sit well with people. Can anyone understand where I am coming from?
You got it and set it free. Maybe that is how life is supposed to be?
I am beginning to wonder if that isn't the real lesson in life. Loving enough to let go.
I didn't as much set it free as much as it set itself free.
"I was down at the New Amsterdam staring at this yellow-haired girl
Mr. Jones strikes up a conversation with this black-haired flamenco dancer
She dances while his father plays guitar
She's suddenly beautiful
We all want something beautiful
I wish I was beautiful..."
Are the Dylan allusions intentional or just curious accidents?
It's not Ballad of a Thin Man, but something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?
"But I would argue that women are less likely to sit with legs open than men. Men need to not squish the go-nads, so it can be required to give them some space."
Actually most women I know keep their feet behind their ears while traveling by bus (but not by train for some reason) in order to keep themselves properly aired .. While not ladylike, it is hygienic and recommended. Men, on the other hand, should keep their legs crossed tightly in order to keep their testicles from bouncing uncontrollably as the bus finds its way through the city.
As it turns out then, most do it entirely backwards, except for the women I know, who are doing it just right.
Are the Dylan allusions intentional or just curious accidents?
Not intentional at all. In fact, this last song I was listening to was "Mr. Jones and Me" by The Black Crows I didn't know that either song was Dylan's.
Take a listen and see if it feels the same...
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 17:10#1616340 likes
Oh, and he fired the State Department official who issued the statement saying that Tillerson wasn't aware he was fired till the tweet. Although that might just because he was Tillerson's man and the new secretary will have their own.
Reply to Posty McPostface I don't know if Tillerson was competent, or if he was I don't know if he was doing the right thing. He hadn't spent any of the $120 million given to combat Russian interference. From what I remember, Pompeo actually recognizes the problem Russia poses, so might actually do something.
I don't know if Tillerson was competent, or if he was I don't know if he was doing the right thing. He hadn't spent any of the $120 million given to combat Russian interference. From what I remember, Pompeo actually recognizes the problem Russia poses, so might actually do something.
Yeah, let's see what Pompeo does. I am not that hot on anyone from within the Trump administration doing anything about Russia. It's a closed case for Trump. Mueller on the other hand, I can't wait to see what he has to say about all this.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Mr. Jones and Me is by the Black Crows, not Dylan, but I always thought the reference to Mr. Jones in the Black Crows' song was to Dylan's The Ballad of the Thin Man that had the classic line (at least to me) "Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones." Dylan is even referenced in the Black Crow's song.
unenlightenedMarch 13, 2018 at 22:32#1617000 likes
Meanwhile in the UK, we have our own Russian interference problems. A second unexplained death is being investigated, but here's a depressingly likely analysis of the whys and wherefores of assassination by nerve agent with a clear chemical signature - it's not carelessness.
Mr. Jones and Me is by the Black Crows, not Dylan, but I always thought the reference to Mr. Jones in the Black Crows' song was to Dylan's The Ballad of the Thin Man that had the classic line (at least to me) "Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones." Dylan is even referenced in the Black Crow's song.
Since you seem to know Bob Dylan songs and you are the second person who I have met that knows his work so well, suggest for me 3 of your favorite songs.
Oh an ironically, he introduced me to the Grateful Dead starting with the song Ripple. Pretty cool :cool:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 22:35#1617020 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 13, 2018 at 22:45#1617070 likes
Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy For sniveling about having to print out a thread via screen shots. If you can toss 10 135# hay bales, twice a day, then you can whine a little but absolutely no sniveling.
Mueller on the other hand, I can't wait to see what he has to say about all this.
LOL - don't be naive man, I doubt Mueller will do anything to Trump. It's hard for the person who controls those who create the laws and uphold the Constitution to ever really get in trouble (unless, of course, his own Party turns against him).
LOL - don't be naive man, I doubt Mueller will do anything to Trump. It's hard for the person who controls those who create the laws and uphold the Constitution to ever really get in trouble (unless, of course, his own Party turns against him).
It'll need a majority in the House and 67 senators. I think the Democrats have a chance of taking the House in November. Even if we assume that the Senate remains unchanged, it will only require 8 Republican senators to vote against him, which I think is likely if Mueller concludes that there were crimes committed. According to this there are 14 Republicans who as of August last year have issues with Trump, and Mueller finding against Trump would probably convince them to convict him if impeached.
Reply to Michael We'll see what happens (as Trump is known to say) - but I highly doubt it. To believe that means that you don't understand how power works.
We'll see what happens (as Trump is known to say) - but I highly doubt it. To believe that means that you don't understand how power works.
I know how power works. I also know how self-interest works. If there's a significant amount of anti-Trump sentiment (among Republican and swing voters) then the Senators are likely to convict Trump so as not to risk their chance at re-election, especially if much of the Democrat wins in traditional Republican territory (e.g. Doug Jones, potentially Conor Lamb) is down to backlash against Trump.
If there's a significant amount of anti-Trump sentiment (among Republican and swing voters) then the Senators are likely to convict Trump so as not to risk their chance at re-election, especially if much of the Democrat wins in traditional Republican territory (e.g. Doug Jones, potentially Conor Lamb) is down to backlash against Trump.
If the Republicans convict Trump, they will lose the Presidency - they will never do that.
If Mueller finds that Trump committed crimes I doubt Trump would win the next election, or if the RNC would even select him as their candidate.
Of course he would get relected - people don't care. He will say it's fake, the doing of the Deep State which has infiltrated and taken over America's institutions, which is what has ruined America. He will say that the accusations are all made up lies, and it's the system fighting back to prevent power from returning to the American people. So he will bring America back, stronger than ever before, and purge the institutions of this insidious organisation that has usurped the Constitution and taken the power back from the people.
He is the President of the United States - you know, you cannot have the police go into the White House and take him if he refuses to leave.
Of course he would get relected - people don't care.
Plenty of people do care. His approval rating is 39%. His approval among Republicans is 87%. He lost the popular vote last time by ~3,000,000 votes. If Mueller finds that Trump committed crimes his support will drop further, most Republicans will likely vote for someone else in the primaries, and even if he does manage to become the candidate the swing states that he won last time are likely to swing the other way, if for no other reason than Democratic turnout will be much higher as they'll be incentivised to vote when they didn't before.
He is the President of the United States - you know, you cannot have the police go into the White House and take him if he refuses to leave.
He wouldn't be the President if somebody else wins the election, or if he's convicted by the Senate after an impeachment.
And, yes, you could have the police go into the White House.
Yeah because of states like California which is full of progressives - if they have more population, should they be given greater weight, even though they cover a disproportionately small area of the US geographically? I don't think so.
And I’m offended! I feel oppressed! You are trying to take away my human right to snivel and whine! And where exactly am I supposed to get 10 to 10135 hay bales from?
See there is that sniveling again. :razz:
I would never take away your right to snivel or whine but I will ask you to do a lick of work before you exercise that right! These animals need feeding and 10 bales of hay, that weigh 135 pounds each, tossed off the trailer you are standing on, as you bump along the pasture with a herd of hangry animals following might be worth sniveling about by the end of day 3, in 115* heat. :fire:
How about those screen shots? A bitch of a chore aren't they? :lol:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 12:05#1618290 likes
She was married when we first met
Soon to be divorced
I helped her out of a jam I guess
But I used a little too much force
What is the name of the song?
Dylan must have spoken to males more than females or my parents raising me on Neil Diamond has forever jaded me. I have a feeling I know more Dylan songs than I realize but I couldn't name one if you asked me. Isn't Dylan the Man in Black?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 12:07#1618310 likes
It'll need a majority in the House and 67 senators. I think the Democrats have a chance of taking the House in November. Even if we assume that the Senate remains unchanged, it will only require 8 Republican senators to vote against him, which I think is likely if Mueller concludes that there were crimes committed. According to this there are 14 Republicans who as of August last year have issues with Trump, and Mueller finding against Trump would probably convince them to convict him if impeached.
How on Earth do you know all this about another countries political system? :chin:
I have a feeling all that information is available on the internets, Tiff. :razz:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 12:22#1618420 likes
Can you guess the name to this song based upon the lyrics alone without help from the Internet?
"If the the sun refused to shine
Would you still be lovin me?
If the mountains crumble to the sea
Would there still be you and me?"
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 12:25#1618440 likes
I have a feeling all that information is available on the internets, Tiff. :razz:
But why bother learning it if it is not your country? (Hmmm that seems like a lame reason not to) But I have a hard enough time keeping our system straight, I cannot imagine knowing how another countries systems work too
Ireland is even more boring. No idea what's going on there. I believe we are still a republic though. Probably.
I know that the Good Friday agreement is causing all such of issues with Brexit.
Somehow the UK and the EU need to ensure that there's no border between ROI and NI, no border between NI and the rest of the UK, but a border between UK and ROI (given that the Government refuses to allow freedom of movement). Seems impossible to me.
Facetiousness aside, yes. The UK is just going to have to back down and stay in the customs union (at least in all but name). Otherwise, it will get no deal and crash out of the EU. Simple as that.
Facetiousness aside, yes. The UK is just going to have to back down and stay in the customs union (at least in all but name). Otherwise, it will get no deal and crash out of the EU. Simple as that.
Which then will break the Good Friday agreement.
And I think the politics of that is far worse than reversing Brexit (or at least staying a member of the single market and so allowing freedom of movement).
A hard or no deal Brexit just seems like the worst decision, both economically and politically.
Count Radetzky von RadetzMarch 14, 2018 at 12:37#1618580 likes
The common sense solution is to have a soft Brexit. And I think that's what everyone with any sense wants. But May is beholden to the right wing of her party as well as to the DUP and is essentially trapped. I think what she is doing now is talking the talk of a hard Brexit to please the euroskeptics while desperately hoping for an opportunity to slip a soft one past them.
Feels are also reals - it's your mistake to cut down your existence to merely what can be discursively articulated. There are a lot of things that I know, that I cannot articulate discursively how or why I know. For example, it's very often in my life that I have predicted upsets in elections. Also the results of important games in sporting competitions, mainly football/soccer (I used to bet, and I made quite a bit of money at it). I cannot say in a rationally justified way how I do it.
But I can describe it. It's like I see someone speak, like Trump, and I watch his energy, and the energy in the crowd. And I really sort of become one with it and feel it on a deeper level. And it's that enthusiasm that tells me whether someone has tapped into something essential in our collective consciousness or not.
When I watch, say, a White Nationalist or Nazi rally (like the Charlottesville one) I know that those people are a fringe group and they will not succeed. The energy is lacking. They may all be committed, but it is a superficial thing, it cannot succeed. I cannot articulate exactly why in words. But I just perceive that they are irrelevant in the bigger picture.
Other examples - when I was in University and I ran for student union positions. When I gave a speech, and I watched the other candidates give a speech - I already knew who would win, based on the reaction of the crowd. Those times when the crowd was enthusiastic and clapping more whenever I spoke - those times I always won. Other times, try as I may, I simply could not swing the crowd in my favour. And I knew I would lose, and I did lose those times.
Or think about when a girl falls in love with you. Take my first girlfriend for instance - I knew she loved me even before I started going out with her. As Trump would say, probably if I were to shoot someone in the middle of the street, she would still have loved me just as much. And you can see that, it was absolutely real and undeniable. Regardless of what I said or did, it didn't matter.
A politician does a similar thing. Skilled politicians capture the heart of a nation. Trump captured it. So did Obama in his first term. You knew they would win, just by watching the enthusiasm of their supporters and feeling it. Look at Hitler, who was one of the most skilled politicians at doing this. He captured the heart of Germany at the time, and regardless of what he did, Germans followed him! Even to their own destruction, they followed. Why did they follow?
There are not many politicians who were capable to do something like this: Trump, Obama, Hitler, Gandhi are some recent examples that come to mind.
And these are subtle matters. It is not something you can bring about. It is much like sailing. The skilled sailor cannot control whether or not there is wind, and what wind there is. But the skilled sailor is capable to use the wind when it is present - to capture and use the tremendous energy of the wind. It is much like that in these matters - there is nothing that Trump or anyone can do to bring about the favourable winds that they run on. But Trump has definitely harnessed tremendous energy, which he is still using.
Your feelings are real feelings, but what you feel Trump's support to be isn't what Trump's support really is.
Gallup's method of determining his support is more reliable and more trustworthy than your gut instinct, or whatever it is that has led you to your conclusion.
Because you're pulling a number out of your ass, whereas Gallup use proper statistical analysis.
No, I'm not pulling it out of my bum :razz: - I do have a way to decipher it, but I cannot discursively articulate how I reach the answer. Does my inability to discursively (or scientifically if you want) articulate how I reach an answer automatically make my answer wrong, and Gallup's answer right, simply because they have a methodology that can be discursively articulated & replicated?
Have you proven that discursively articulated methodologies are superior to other methodologies in determining election outcomes?
Oh, that's handy. Well, I think Trump's real support is less than 35%. And I have no way to scientifically verify that either, but blah blah gut feelings etc. So, my method is as good as yours and therefore we're both right??
Because I said so, and I'm a genius, that's why :cool: Satisfied? :razz:
Lol, you probably just got this number from Trump's tweet, or more directly, the Rasmussen Report poll, which isn't regarded as a high quality polling report. FiveThirtyEight aggregates polls and assigns them different weights to account for poll quality (e.g. partisanship, sample size, recency, etc.) and currently has Trump's approval rating at 40.5%
Lol, you probably just got this number from Trump's tweet, or more directly, the Rasmussen Report poll, which isn't regarded as a high quality polling report.
Nope. He just feels that it's 50%. He thinks he's Nostradamus:
[quote=Agustino]For example, it's very often in my life that I have predicted upsets in elections. Also the results of important games in sporting competitions, mainly football/soccer (I used to bet, and I made quite a bit of money at it). I cannot say in a rationally justified way how I do it.[/quote]
There's really no way to argue with someone who refuses any empirical evidence that contradicts their "instinct". It's a wasted effort.
Dylan must have spoken to males more than females or my parents raising me on Neil Diamond has forever jaded me. I have a feeling I know more Dylan songs than I realize but I couldn't name one if you asked me. Isn't Dylan the Man in Black?
Yeah, Bob Dylan is Johnny Cash. Good Lord. Here's Johnny when he was really old singing the Nine Inch Nails song "I Hurt Myself Today" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt1Pwfnh5pc
Speaking of Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor, here's that song you keep talking about that they sing: "I Want to Fuck You Like an Animal. (Closer)" Enjoy.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vSAOrpKlgY
Reply to Baden I put no trust in polling, not because I believe there is a grand conspiracy, but because they are consistently wrong in predicting election outcomes. Trump had been mathematically eliminated dozens of times from the election. Either the polls don't secure a cross-section, those being polled don't offer honest information, the pollsters are biased, or the pollsters are incompetent, I don't know. I do know that they are about as good as telling me who is going to win an election as they are in telling me whether it's going to rain next month.
I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is to see you
So, my method is as good as yours and therefore we're both right??
Describe your method as best as possible (as I did). And what's your track record?
The methodology cannot be fully disclosed discursively. You cannot judge if it's better or worse than mine as easily as you wish. That's not an indictment of it. You can say that you don't trust it since you don't understand it. That's fair enough. I certainly don't trust yours because (1) I don't understand it, and (2) I see you don't have much of a track record. You have to say a lot more about that, than merely say that it cannot be discursively disclosed, and therefore it is wrong. That's not why it is wrong, if it is.
There's really no way to argue with someone who refuses any empirical evidence that contradicts their "instinct". It's a wasted effort.
My track record isn't empirical evidence? Oh really... :rofl: Look at the empirical evidence of the failing Gallup polls, which fail to predict election results. That's what you should be looking at. But you ignore that evidence, because they have a methodology that can be discursively articulated and replicated :lol:
Lol, you probably just got this number from Trump's tweet, or more directly, the Rasmussen Report poll, which isn't regarded as a high quality polling report.
No, he wasn't "mathematically eliminated" by any poll I know of. He was just given a lower chance of winning. And in the end, the polls were off by one or two percent. So, if you understood the science behind polling, you'd understand they have to be wrong sometimes because they're just statistical tools and are not supposed to be able to call the winner 100% correctly all the time - especially in close contests (and they normally declare their margin of errors in advance). Putting "no" trust in them just leaves you at a disadavantage. It would make more sense to put a qualified trust in them on the basis that they are useful indicators of opinion with obvious potential flaws.
Describe your method as best as possible (as I did). And what's your track record?
Well, since Hillary lost, I read sheep intestines. Because, obviously if the polls were wrong once, they must be wrong all the time. So, screw science, back to the tried and true.
Because you're pulling a number out of your ass, whereas Gallup use proper statistical analysis.
It's not their analysis that is wrong. It appears the data they gather is unreliable. They're wrong too often. They need to run some statistical analysis on their wrongness.
I predicted Pennsylvania would go to Trump in the days before the election when he was down like 4 to 6 points and it wasn't really considered in play. It wasn't that I pulled that prediction out of my ass, but it was more that I realized it was a rust belt state that had been hammered by the loss of manufacturing jobs and they had lost hope in the Democrats who were supposed to be pro-union and would save them. White working class people had moved to Trump with his protect American jobs platform.
Hanover -1, Gallup - 0.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 13:21#1618900 likes
Reply to Hanover I agree. I remember that I "called" Obama's election even before de Democratic primaries finished but with the last election I never really dared committing to an outcome one way or the other even when NY Times reported a 90% likelihood of Hillary winning. We all know how this ended.
Hillary was hated. Trump was hated. I'd probably have gone with a "better the devil you know" just going by their personality if I could've voted. In the end I'd have voted against the Republican party but I would never have voted for Hillary because of Hillary.
Well, since Hillary lost, I read sheep intestines. Because, obviously if the polls were wrong once, they must be wrong all the time. So, screw science, back to the tried and true.
Not once. Crooked, Brexit, and other local elections that you wouldn't know about.
Well, since Hillary lost, I read sheep intestines. Because, obviously if the polls were wrong once, they must be wrong all the time. So, screw science, back to the tried and true.
You have given a joke of an 'explanation'. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to put in more effort. If anyone compares this crap with the explanation I gave, there is no comparison.
Why not listen to some of us here? I hoped and voted for Trump as did some others here. I predicted he would win because he had hustle and hustle is a good tool for a President. Just ask the King Of Hustle, President Obama.
Reply to Baden It wasn't 50/50. It was supposed to go clearly to Clinton. What it proves is that the polls were wrong and I was right, and if you want to know what's going to happen, you can ask me. If you're a Democrat, and you want to hear that you're candidate is going to win, you should read the polls because they always favor the losing Democrat.
Because no-one here is providing a method more consistently reliable than polling to listen to. You can have a bad method or no method and still be right sometimes on something as close as a presidential election.
I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is to see you
Oh, oh I know this one!
I Want to Fuck You Like an Animal!
Feels are also reals - it's your mistake to cut down your existence to merely what can be discursively articulated. There are a lot of things that I know, that I cannot articulate discursively how or why I know. For example, it's very often in my life that I have predicted upsets in elections. Also the results of important games in sporting competitions, mainly football/soccer (I used to bet, and I made quite a bit of money at it). I cannot say in a rationally justified way how I do it.
But I can describe it. It's like I see someone speak, like Trump, and I watch his energy, and the energy in the crowd. And I really sort of become one with it and feel it on a deeper level. And it's that enthusiasm that tells me whether someone has tapped into something essential in our collective consciousness or not.
When I watch, say, a White Nationalist or Nazi rally (like the Charlottesville one) I know that those people are a fringe group and they will not succeed. The energy is lacking. They may all be committed, but it is a superficial thing, it cannot succeed. I cannot articulate exactly why in words. But I just perceive that they are irrelevant in the bigger picture.
Other examples - when I was in University and I ran for student union positions. When I gave a speech, and I watched the other candidates give a speech - I already knew who would win, based on the reaction of the crowd. Those times when the crowd was enthusiastic and clapping more whenever I spoke - those times I always won. Other times, try as I may, I simply could not swing the crowd in my favour. And I knew I would lose, and I did lose those times.
Or think about when a girl falls in love with you. Take my first girlfriend for instance - I knew she loved me even before I started going out with her. As Trump would say, probably if I were to shoot someone in the middle of the street, she would still have loved me just as much. And you can see that, it was absolutely real and undeniable. Regardless of what I said or did, it didn't matter.
A politician does a similar thing. Skilled politicians capture the heart of a nation. Trump captured it. So did Obama in his first term. You knew they would win, just by watching the enthusiasm of their supporters and feeling it. Look at Hitler, who was one of the most skilled politicians at doing this. He captured the heart of Germany at the time, and regardless of what he did, Germans followed him! Even to their own destruction, they followed. Why did they follow?
There are not many politicians who were capable to do something like this: Trump, Obama, Hitler, Gandhi are some recent examples that come to mind.
And these are subtle matters. It is not something you can bring about. It is much like sailing. The skilled sailor cannot control whether or not there is wind, and what wind there is. But the skilled sailor is capable to use the wind when it is present - to capture and use the tremendous energy of the wind. It is much like that in these matters - there is nothing that Trump or anyone can do to bring about the favourable winds that they run on. But Trump has definitely harnessed tremendous energy, which he is still using.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 13:29#1619040 likes
Because no-one here is providing a method more consistently reliable than polling to listen to.
Listening is a really good method and often under valued. Many of those around me confided in me that they were voting for Trump once they knew I was supporting him.
That's not a method, it's a love song to Trump and totally irrelevant. Don't you realize that Trump would have lost if it were not for an unlucky break re: Comey? And in the end he did lose the popular vote and won the election by a few thousand votes in states like Pennsylvania. So, he won due to the quirks of the system and an unlucky break for Clinton. And you were right purely by chance.
Actually, I predicted that it would be really close and not yet formally decided until today and that it would result in a recount that would favor the Democrat. I also predicted that you would ask me about it in response to my post about Trump winning Pennsylvania. All of these predictions were made during the Carter administration, before many of the players in these predictions were ever born. I embarrassingly predicted it would rain today though, although it is still morning and anything can happen.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 13:36#1619080 likes
So, he won due to the quirks of the system and an unlucky break for Clinton
No Baden, Trump won because the engine of America was running on fumes and we were about to say 'fuck it'. And when I say "we" I mean the small businesses of America.
That's not a method, it's a love song to Trump and totally irrelevant. Don;t you realize that Trump would have lost if it were not for an unlucky break re: Comey and in the end he did lose the popular vote and won the election by a few thousand in states like Pennsylvania. So, he won due to the quirks of the system and an unlucky break for Clinton. And you were right purely by chance.
Sure, and my team would have won so many more games if the ball wouldn't have hit the goal post and bounced out.
No, if that were the case, most Americans would have voted for him, but they didn't, they voted for Clinton.
:roll: Maybe Michael would be generous enough to explain how it is if Hillary won that Trump was named President. I know you know how Hillary lost, I just wonder why you keep denying it.
In some happy science news: https://www.livescience.com/62000-scott-kelly-dna-twin-study.html
"When Scott Kelly returned to Earth after a 340-day voyage aboard the International Space Station (ISS) two years ago, he was 2 inches taller than he'd been when he left. His body mass had decreased, his gut bacteria were completely different, and — according to preliminary findings from NASA researchers — his genetic code had changed significantly. ... While most of these genetic changes reverted to normal following Scott Kelly's return to Earth, about 7 percent of the astronaut's genetic code remained altered — and it may stay that way permanently."
This highlights the pure silliness of @Agustino claims; as if he predicted Trump was so loved he would lose by two percent and then accidentally win the electoral college.
I still marginally prefer Trump to Clinton on a personal level btw folks. Mostly because he appears to be less calculating in his lying. Regarding policy, she would have been marginally better.
Last thing, for all you poll doubters, the last prediction of 538 gave Trump a decent 28.6% chance of winning the election and predicted the result would be 48.5% to 44.9% in Clinton's favour. So they were only an aggregate of about 1.4% wrong. Let's see you get the percentages right within that margin the next time there's an election and then I might begin to take you even remotely seriously.
A politician does a similar thing. Skilled politicians capture the heart of a nation. Trump captured it.
Clinton had nearly 3 million more votes than Trump tho.
Using the "energy of a crowd" as criteria for election prediction is just exercising biased perception. What You See Is All There Is. Of course those who attend a Trump rally are going to vote for Trump. No doubt that there are smaller, third party political rallies which fire up attendants too. It says nothing about the millions and millions and millions of Americans who don't attend the events, indeed, because Clinton won the popular vote.
And in the end he did lose the popular vote and won the election by a few thousand votes in states like Pennsylvania.
Popular vote is irrelevant. States like California have way too many people, it's not fair that they decide equally for the rest of America's geographic area.
This highlights the pure silliness of Agustino claims; as if he predicted Trump was so loved he would lose by two percent and then accidentally win the electoral college.
Trump is loved by a majority of Americans. As I said, around 50%. Not by everyone.
Clinton had nearly 3 million more votes than Trump tho.
I agree. As I said though, it's not fair that if population is mostly concentrated in one area (say Cali) then they should be able to force other areas (MidWest for example) to do as they wish. Taking into account all geographical reasons is as important as taking into account the popular vote, if not more important than that. Hence the electoral college.
Using the "energy of a crowd" as criteria for election prediction is just exercising biased perception. What You See Is All There Is. Of course those who attend a Trump rally are going to vote for Trump. No doubt that there are smaller, third party political rallies which fire up attendants too. It says nothing about the millions and millions and millions of Americans who don't attend the events, indeed, because Clinton won the popular vote.
Yes, it could be. But I distinguish something like a Neo-Nazi rally, where people also show great excitement, and a Trump Rally. The two are qualitatively different in the energy they gather & manifest. I mentioned this in my first explanation. The energy alone is not sufficient (if you take that to be merely the energy of individual people qua individuals) - it could just be a fringe group. But Trump gathers a lot of supporters at once and generates that kind of energy across all regions of the US (maybe some exceptions with NYC, Cali, etc.).
Popular vote is irrelevant. States like California have way too many people, it's not fair that they decide equally for the rest of America's geographic area.
In a popular vote each vote counts, and counts for 1. How is that not fair? What does the state the voter lives in have to do with it?
You're conflating what's fair and your imaginary ability to predict things. So, as I said, 538 were within 1.5% of the final tally and were right that Clinton would win the popular vote. You predicted Trump would get more votes than her, so you were wrong, (and your methodology which suggested Americans loved Trump more was obviously wrong too). You only turned out to be right about the final result by a quirk of the system.
In any case, there's an easy way to decide who is more accurate, you or the polls. The next time there's an election, whichever one you want, you make a percentage prediction and we'll compare it to a poll aggregator. Then we'll repeat the process a few times. If you are consistently more accurate, I'll accept that your method, whatever that is, is superior. Until then, all you are doing is making unsubstantiated claims concerning your abilities, which no intelligent person would take seriously.
I agree. As I said though, it's not fair that if population is mostly concentrated in one area (say Cali) then they should be able to force other areas (MidWest for example) to do as they wish. Taking into account all geographical reasons is as important as taking into account the popular vote, if not more important than that. Hence the electoral college.
Under a popular vote, geographical differences have no impact because it's based on the individual vote alone. It's the electoral college that assigns different weight to geographic population differences. How is it "fair" if three million votes were effectively nullified under the Electoral College?
Nearly 4 million Californians voted for Trump in 2016. That's more Trump votes than some Mid-Western states combined.
But Trump gathers a lot of supporters at once and generates that kind of energy across all regions of the US
Sure, he does (or did), and yet he nevertheless lost the popular vote. It doesn't follow that you believed you could "predict" Trump's victory, based on the "energy of the crowds" and tapping into a nationwide "collective consciousness", and yet he failed to capture the majority of votes. If Clinton won the popular vote, the majority of US voters, it follows more strongly that she "gathers a lot of supporters" and "captured energy across all regions of the US".
Under a popular vote, geographical differences have no impact because it's based on the individual vote alone. It's the electoral college that assigns different weight to geographic population differences.
How is it "fair" if three million votes were effectively nullified under the Electoral College?
Precisely because, if, say, 90% of the population of the US were in California, it would not be right for California to decide for all other regions - the citizens of California do not understand the problems that the other geographical regions are dealing with (some of them geography-specific problems). So they are not representative of the collective as a whole, even if they are the majority numerically. I actually think that having a geographic representation is MORE important than having a numerical majority. A numerical majority tends to lead to problems of asymmetrical development, where the regions which are numerically a minority, but geographically a majority will be left underdeveloped. That is what's happening now. Large cities in the UK for example - London, Manchester, Birmingham, etc. are sucking all the resources (including population), leaving the surrounding communities underdeveloped in comparison to them.
Precisely because, if, say, 90% of the population of the US were in California, it would not be right for California to decide for all other regions - the citizens of California do not understand the problems that the other geographical regions are dealing with (some of them geography-specific problems). So they are not representative of the collective as a whole, even if they are the majority numerically. I actually think that having a geographic representation is MORE important than having a numerical majority. A numerical majority tends to lead to problems of asymmetrical development, where the regions which are numerically a minority, but geographically a majority will be left underdeveloped. That is what's happening now. Large cities in the UK for example - London, Manchester, Birmingham, etc. are sucking all the resources (including population), leaving the surrounding communities underdeveloped in comparison to them.
So it's fair for 10% of the population to have an equal (or otherwise disproportionate) say to the other 90%, simply because they live in a less populated region?
Nope, it's right. They have to decide for the country as a whole - the country isn't just one state, especially when you're dealing with a country as large and as varied as the US - regardless of what population that state has.
In fact, I even told you why it's right, but again, you keep spewing emotionally driven BS, as if what you said is the truth merely by virtue of coming from your keyboard.
Precisely because, if, say, 90% of the population of the US were in California, it would not be right for California to decide for all other regions - the citizens of California do not understand the problems that the other geographical regions are dealing with (some of them geography-specific problems). So they are not representative of the collective as a whole, even if they are the majority numerically.
Nope, it's right. They have to decide for the country as a whole - the country isn't just one state, especially when you're dealing with a country as large and as varied as the US - regardless of what population that state has.
What's so special about one's residence that it should determine the weight of one's vote?
Maybe I should say that it's unfair that the white majority have more of a say than the black minority; that white people don't understand the problems that black people face; and so therefore that black people should have a disproportionate share of the vote.
In fact, I even told you why it's right, but again, you keep spewing emotionally driven BS, as if what you said is the truth merely by virtue of coming from your keyboard.
Yes, @Michael, is a bit of a wild one. No matter how many times we suggest he use logic and reason in his arguments, he just can't keep his gut feelings and emotions out of things. What are we to do?
Precisely because, if, say, 90% of the population of the US were in California, it would not be right for California to decide for all other regions - the citizens of California do not understand the problems that the other geographical regions are dealing with (some of them geography-specific problems). So they are not representative of the collective as a whole, even if they are the majority numerically.
Precisely because, if, say, 75% of the population of the US are Christian, it would not be right for Christians to decide for all other faiths - Christians do not understand the problems that other faiths are dealing with (some of them faith-based ethical problems, e.g. same-sex marriage and abortion). So they are not representative of the collective as a whole, even if they are the majority numerically.
Nope, it's right. They have to decide for the country as a whole - the country isn't just one state, especially when you're dealing with a country as large and as varied as the US - regardless of what population that state has.
The country isn't just one religion, or race, or gender, or age. So let's let the minorities have a disproportionate say!
What's so special about one's residence that it should determine the weight of one's vote?
*facepalm* - one's geographic area has its own ways of life, its own means of economic sustenance, etc. Are you telling me the average Cali fella working for, say, Facebook understands the problems, issues and way of life of, say, a farmer from the Midwest? Do you think someone from Cali understands the crime problems that the Midwest is facing? The economic problems? etc. That he can decide for the farmer in the Midwest just because there are more like him?!
Maybe I should say that it's unfair that the white majority have more of a say than the black minority; that white people don't understand the problems that black people face; and so therefore that black people should have a disproportionate share of the vote.
Those differences are minor in comparison to the differences that result from geography.
Yes, Michael, is a bit of a wild one. No matter how many times we suggest he use logic and reason in his arguments, he just can't keep his gut feelings and emotions out of things. What are we to do?
I predict a 50% chance for the next President of the US to be a Democrat. If it turns out to be a Republican that's well within my error tolerance for me to always be accurate and correct.
Half the US population voted in the 2016 presidential election, meaning that roughly only one quarter of the US population voted for either Clinton or Trump. So if someone wants to bring out the pitchforks because Clinton won more of a percentage of American votes - fine - just realize that her winning the "majority" still means she's not supported by three quarters of the country.
unenlightenedMarch 14, 2018 at 15:22#1619460 likes
I predict there will not be another presidential election, because the economy no longer has to care about the mass of people, and what they think.
I predict Agustino won't explain why him predicting Trump would get more votes than Hillary because he was more popular than her, and unlike almost every poll, being completely wrong about this was some sort of victory for his gut vs scientific method.
Reply to Baden :You are downplaying the failure of polls, especially as they relate to Republican candidates. In my home state, there have been a number of examples where the polling showed either Democrats winning or far closer races than what actually occurred. Like I said, this isn't an attempt to argue that statistics isn't a valid field that yields useful results, nor is it an attempt to suggest that the folks at Gallup are inserting bias into their results. My best guess is that Republican views have been designated politically incorrect, and what people are willing to say in private (including at the ballot box) is different from what they're wiling to express in public. It's simply the case that having a Trump sticker on your car was bolder than having a Clinton sticker during the election.
This is calculated for (although you may be right that it wasn't calculated for enough in the last presidential election or others you've experienced). That's really a minor point, anyway, and not a reason to dismiss polls or their predictive power— necessarily limited as it is. The fact is that the margin of error of most polls is about 2-3%, and the majority of polls come in within those bounds when measured against the results they set out to predict. In a close race where the winner is within the margin of error, the poll can be both wrong in its prediction yet scientifically accurate/reliable. So, the bellwether of poll reliability is not whether a given poll is "right" in the narrow sense of whether or not it gets the winner right, but whether or not it does what it says it would do, which is to predict a result within a given margin of error. Most do reasonably well at that. And poll aggregators, which score polls for their performance and weight their results (as does 538), further reduce error. So while some individual polls may turn out to be unreliable, polling as a science is not, generally speaking, and it's obviously more reliable than guesses based on "feelings". That's the boring reality. But people who don't understand this like to talk about how their gut instinct beat the polls, an attitude which expresses little apart from an ignorance about how polls work and an irrational confidence in their personal predictive powers (probably combined with some anti-science/establishment orientation). An analogy would be someone going to Vegas, winning at roulette, and then imagining he can continue to beat the casino indefinitely. He'll eventually lose his shirt. And in a competition with pollsters who have access to huge amounts of data, the man on the street who thinks he has some special insight into human nature the rest of us lack will, given a large enough sample of results, inevitably come out the loser too.
Half the US population voted in the 2016 presidential election, meaning that roughly only one quarter of the US population voted for either Clinton or Trump. So if someone wants to bring out the pitchforks because Clinton won more of a percentage of American votes - fine - just realize that her winning the "majority" still means she's not supported by three quarters of the country.
This is bologna. This whole discussion is bologna. I don't like President Trump. I think he's a terrible president. But... he was elected in accordance with the US's electoral system. The popular vote is irrelevant to the question. It's electoral votes that matter. Maybe we should have a different system, but we don't. It's not unfair, it's the way things are done here.
As for "not supported by three quarters of the country...." Bologna too. ~59% of eligible voters voted. ~65% of registered voters. Would it be nice if it were higher, sure. Again, that's not the way it works. In 2008 a lot of people said Obama was not their president. Now a lot of people say Trump is not their president. They're all wrong. This is what we get. This is what we've got. Suck it up.
As for "not supported by three quarters of the country...."
There were 250,000,000 eligible voters. 66,000,000 voted for Clinton. That's 26.4%. Buxtebuddha is pretty spot on with saying that Clinton wasn't supported by three quarters of the country.
Reply to Baden NPR, your most trusted name in news, presents the following reasons the pollsters got it wrong: https://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502014643/4-possible-reasons-the-polls-got-it-so-wrong-this-year.
This is significant because they concede the premise that the polls results were wrong, as opposed to you, who claim the polls were right, [s]but the drooling public can't understand what it means to be wrong[/s]. What I can say is that even if you were right, [s]and you're not[/s], that the polls got it right, but the public misunderstood, is that the press most certainly looked upon the polls as proof of who was going to win and they presented that narrative. That is, they didn't say that Clinton was up 4 points but that means it's dead even because of the standard of error. They said Clinton is winning and will win and it's a done deal.
[s]The reason the press did as the did is because they wanted to reassure themselves and their constituents and puppy dog followers that the good guy (or woman as the case may be) was destined for victory.[/s]
[s]You, in your attempt to feign neutrality, defend neither party expressly, but instead apparently just wish to protect the dignity of the science of statistics, fearful that it will fall into disfavor like other already sullied supposedly neutral institutions like the press, the courts, and climatology science.[/s]
The way I delete the belligerent parts of my posts is by using the cross out method, offering me a way to sort of spout off but pretend it's not there.
OK, but what exactly do you disagree with in what I wrote? I was pretty specific and qualified in what I was saying about polling. [s]Plus, it took me at least 15 damn minutes to write. And you give me this BS in return??[/s]
There were 250,000,000 eligible voters. 66,000,000 voted for Clinton. That's 26.4%. Buxtebuddha is pretty spot on with saying that Clinton wasn't supported by three quarters of the country.
What was that word again? Oh, yeah - bologna. Let's see, that means 100% of US citizens who were less than 18 years old in 2016 did not support Trump. That's a pretty amazing statistic!!! 100%!!! It's not fair!!!
OK, but what exactly do you disagree with in what I wrote?
[s]Just that I do think the polls have shown themselves increasingly unreliable recently, and it's not all explainable in terms of a misunderstanding of the concept of margin of error.[/s] Stop trying to get in my pants..
And there was me thinking you were a convert to the Agustino method for getting things wrong and then claiming credit for being a genius. Close call...
I predict Agustino won't explain why him predicting Trump would get more votes than Hillary because he was more popular than her, and unlike almost every poll, being completely wrong about this was some sort of victory for his gut vs scientific method.
I didn't predict that Trump will get more votes than Clinton. I predicted that Trump will win, fully aware that in actual fact Trump will probably have gotten fewer votes than Clinton, granted that states like California which have very high populations were Crooked landslides and Trump had effectively no chance there.
Oh well, that you disapprove of my method isn't that troubling to me. What is more troubling is the scientistic emphasis you have, that for something to work pragmatically and empirically, then it must be experimentally reproducible and methodologically shareable.
@Michael, I did take into account how often I was wrong, and it was a few times, but for certain I've been right more often than wrong. And even when I was wrong, I wasn't super far off wrong - I remember one time I had made a bet before the start of CL that Juventus would win. Juventus had just come from 2 years of trouble. First year they were kicked out of Italy's Seria A so they battled it back very hungrily and qualified again for Seria A. Then they immediately (well not really immediately, one year after :P ) won Seria A and qualified for CL. They were up and coming, they had the momentum, they had kept most of their best players, and they were extremely hungry. I could see that in the energy the players put in the game, in the way their fans acted, and in the atmosphere of their games.That time, I made a bet that Juventus would win CL. I think the year was 2015 - at that time Juve hadn't been in the finals or come close to winning CL in 10+ years. They didn't win it this time either, but they did get to the finals (losing to Barcelona?). So yeah, I was wrong that time for example, but not too wrong - they were very close. It's rare that I ever find such opportunities though. Even in politics, it was a few times - Trump, Obama, Brexit and a few local elections. I certainly don't frequently identify such events.
OK, so now you're saying your prediction was that Clinton would get more votes than Trump (and Trump would just win by the electoral college), and your method for discovering that was in your own words:
"It's like I see someone speak, like Trump, and I watch his energy, and the energy in the crowd. And I really sort of become one with it and feel it on a deeper level. And it's that enthusiasm that tells me whether someone has tapped into something essential in our collective consciousness or not...
Skilled politicians capture the heart of a nation. Trump captured it. So did Obama in his first term. You knew they would win, just by watching the enthusiasm of their supporters and feeling it. Look at Hitler, who was one of the most skilled politicians at doing this. He captured the heart of Germany at the time, and regardless of what he did, Germans followed him! Even to their own destruction, they followed. Why did they follow?"
So, you thought Trump would lose the popular vote because...he was so popular.
Well, this is descending into farce rather quickly.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 19:17#1619760 likes
Is this the same "predictive power" that changes my text on my phone from "Fuck" to "Duck"?
Let me tell you how infuriating it can be to swear in a text only to have it come across as some cute, fluffy, yellow duck!
So, you thought Trump would lose the popular vote because...he was so popular.
Well, this is descending into farce rather quickly.
No man - I said that I had taken into account how the US electoral system works when I made the prediction that Trump would win the election (regardless of popular vote).
Show me where you did that before the election. Quote yourself. Otherwise tell me what your predicted percentages were because if you want to compare yourself to a poll that's the only meaningful method, and the rest of what your saying is just nonsense based on your misunderstanding of how polls work and what they are supposed to do. Most polls allowed for the fact that Trump might win (and gave him a roughly 1 in 3 chance in the case of 538, for example, which isn't bad odds), so they were not in conflict with your prediction. Unlike you though, they also gave a statistical percentage spread, which was also accurate in the case of the poll aggregator I quoted. It's only the exact predicted percentage that was wrong (which is expected). What was your predicted percentage? And if you don't have one then can you just admit you have no case here.
I didn't predict that Trump will get more votes than Clinton. I predicted that Trump will win, fully aware that in actual fact Trump will probably have gotten fewer votes than Clinton
Haha you are so full of bullshit Agustino. I wonder if you actually believe the lies you are telling us.
And you still haven't explained how Trump "captured the heart of the nation" when he lost the popular vote. The heart of the nation is based on the electoral college now? It would be more accurate, but still probably false, to say "Clinton captured the heart of the nation" as she got more votes. From the nation.
Haha you are so full of bullshit Agustino. I wonder if you actually believe the lies you are telling us.
I did not predict Trump would lose the popular vote (especially by a margin of 3m) - but I was fully aware it was possible. Any other content apart from insults, or you have nothing better in your tiny head?
OK, so your gut got it all wrong about Trump capturing the heart of the nation etc. What is your new reason for predicting the win then since that's now out the window.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 19:29#1619970 likes
Question: I am just curious as to what you would do, if you saw two people struggle to drag an unconscious person out of a pool and are acting in a such a way that it is clear that this is an emergency.
Would you:
A) run as fast as you freakin could to get to help them in any way you can?
B) stand frozen and just watch what it happening?
C) understand why someone needs to yell to another to call 911 because not everyone knows how to react in a situation?
D) Walk away offering no help at all?
I did not make predictions in terms of percentage points. My prediction was a slight win for Trump in electoral college (which is the only thing that matter as regards the election).
Why must meaningful methods be simply those that can be quantified?! :s This is pure scientism and it's completely unjustified. You expect me to prostrate myself before quantifiable ways of solving problems. I disagree on principle.
OK, so your gut got it all wrong about Trump capturing the heart of the nation etc.
No - "winning the heart of a nation" means energising the people, and the popularity that you amass. This is not quantified merely by numbers of people though that is important too. It's also about the underlying energy - Trump supporters had more energy than the Crooked ones, they had more drive.
No, because you were using it to predict who would win the vote. Each person has one vote. The intensity of energy of individuals is irrelevant in an election. The only thing that's relevant is how many votes each candidate gets (and where they get them in the case of the electoral college). So what if Trump supporters had more drive. They had one vote each. And the popularity Trump amassed was less than the popularity Clinton amassed because he lost the popular vote and she won it. Clearly, overall, the drive and popularity was more behind her.
I did not predict Trump would lose the popular vote (especially by a margin of 3m) - but I was fully aware it was possible
No no no, you said Trump would "in actual fact"..."probably" get fewer votes than Clinton, and gave the example of California's population. That's not the same as stating it's a theoretical "possibility".
You could ask them or watch to see if they are doing CPR. You could shout at them that you can do it and take over if you can. Doing something stupid in this scenario could cost a life so you use your intelligence to make a calculated decision.
No no no, you said Trump would "in actual fact"..."probably" get fewer votes than Clinton, and gave the example of California's population. That's not the same as stating it's a theoretical "possibility".
Yeah, I thought it was probable, but I never made a prediction based on that. Either way, you can get your cocky feeling thinking that you're right and Agustino is wrong, I don't really care about ego games man. You're not interested to discuss the underlying issue - whether we should prostate ourselves before quantifiable methods of analysis all the time, or there are situations when 'intuitive' methods give better, faster and more reliable answers.
You could ask them or watch to see if they are doing CPR. You could shout at them that you can do it and take over if you can. Doing something stupid in this scenario could cost a life so you use your intelligence to make a calculated decision.
Okay so you are not giving an answer provided, Thanks for playin bro
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 19:40#1620170 likes
Are there any 'thinkers' who would choose one of the four?
:sad:
Yes, and Clinton's intensity was higher, she got more people to vote for her. Keep digging.
That doesn't mean her intensity was higher. She could barely stand on her two feet, give me a break. Trump had probably 5-6x (if not more) the rallies Crooked did.
It's my personal opinion; but, I do believe the DNC was corrupt as 'duck'. In that it was clear from the early days that Jeb was the favorite nominee of the RNC; but, got 'ducked' really hard by the Rump.
Had democracy had its way, Sanders would be president today. No doubt in my mind about that.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 19:43#1620250 likes
Yes, that's the problem. But yes, Sanders had gathered a lot of momentum too. He would definitely have had a much better chance than Clinton, and may have won. At the same time, he would have been an easier target for Trump, being a "socialist" and a "communist", which don't jive well with most older Americans.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 19:45#1620300 likes
Haley is taking Russia to the wood shed. :gasp:
Powerful lady full of grace and is very easy on the conservative eyes.
Buxte qualified his answer just like I did. I said "It depends". He said "unless". Those are both qualifying statements. He wouldn't do anything either unless certain conditions apply. What's your beef?
Yes, that's the problem. But yes, Sanders had gathered a lot of momentum too. He would definitely have had a much better chance than Clinton, and may have won. At the same time, he would have been an easier target for Trump, being a "socialist" and a "communist", which don't jive well with most older Americans.
The thing is, as I commented about this in a CNN poll. Trump would have nothing on Sanders. In fact, nobody has anything "on" Sanders. He could have kept quiet (Sanders) and watch Trump dig himself in a hole. It would have been a test of character, as in many ways it was between Shillary and Trump, but Sanders would have won hands down.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 19:48#1620330 likes
My beef is that you never do nothing. You always communicate. It is the first part of CPR or if a dog fight broke out and your Mother In Law just stood and watched as your son and daughter in law could have used a bit of duckin help!
Oh fer the love of pete I give
The communism/socialism thing is BIG for most older Americans man. Many would not vote simply because they heard Sanders is socialist/communist. This isn't Europe or something, where communist/socialist is okay in some parts.
The communism/socialism thing is BIG for most older Americans man. Many would not vote simply because they heard Sanders is socialist/communist. This isn't Europe or something, where communist/socialist is okay in some parts.
Yeah, and so was Obama called and reviled as a socialist for bringing Obamacare. Yet, he won his second term without much effort. And, it's true that the Sanders would have to keep voter turnout among the young, high enough to get into office; but, if my memory serves me well, he had no issues with that, apart from the DNC squashing his chances.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2018 at 19:53#1620420 likes
Yeah, and so was Obama called and reviled as a socialist for bringing Obamacare.
That was just for his re-election. Presidents usually get re-elected once they have been once in office. Why do you reckon that happens? Does it have to do, by chance, with controlling the state apparatus?
But the first time he ran, there was some propaganda against him being a socialist/communist, but not very believable. For Sanders, it really would be believable, because in many regards it is true.
...that she would win more votes than Trump. Keep digging.
:lol: You have developed an obsession with winning votes. Winning the election isn't the same as winning votes - I predicted the result of the election, not the result of votings.
Question: I am just curious as to what you would do, if you saw two people struggle to drag an unconscious person out of a pool and are acting in a such a way that it is clear that this is an emergency.
Would you:
A) run as fast as you freakin could to get to help them in any way you can?
B) stand frozen and just watch what it happening?
C) understand why someone needs to yell to another to call 911 because not everyone knows how to react in a situation?
D) Walk away offering no help at all?
Here's what we were taught when we came across a situation like this. 1) Say "Has anyone called 911?" If not, call it 2) Then say "I know CPR, can I help?" Which letter is that? C I guess.
But the first time he ran, there was some propaganda against him being a socialist/communist, but not very believable. For Sanders, it really would be believable, because in many regards it is true.
You don't get it. Sanders made it abundantly clear during the primaries, that he was a social democrat, even openly saying that he is 'socialist'. People didn't seem to really care much about that. The McCarthy days and the red scare are long gone, do you still keep them back in your mind?
On the basis that Trump was more popular, which he wasn't, and captured the heart of the nation, which he didn't. In other words, you guessed and were right by accident. What was your percentage prediction again? If you didn't have one, stop comparing yourself to polls. I just explained to you how they work by predicting a percentage spread and a probability of winning/losing.
You don't get it. Sanders made it abundantly clear during the primaries, that he was a social democrat, even openly saying that he is 'socialist'. People didn't seem to really care much about that.
Yes, that's exactly the problem, that he openly admitted to it. The students didn't care much, but in a 1-on-1 race with Trump that would have become a MAJOR issue.
You're not interested to discuss the underlying issue - whether we should prostate ourselves before quantifiable methods of analysis all the time, or there are situations when 'intuitive' methods give better, faster and more reliable answers.
Yes, that's exactly the problem, that he openly admitted to it. The students didn't care much, but in a 1-on-1 race with Trump that would have become a MAJOR issue.
I don't think the issue is as serious as you claim. Democrats pretty much only win (or lose) based on young voter turnout. The old rednecks or conservatives might vote more often; but, their voice isn't that much of an issue when the young are moved to vote. That's pretty much how Republicans win elections, just based on poor young voter turnout.
Don't try to dodge, especially in such a cowardly way by pretending I don't want to discuss the issue. I do, which is why I asked you the fair questions: What was your percentage prediction? And did you have one or not?
Well, then that makes sense then. I lived in Poland for a while, and he does smell of the similar sentimental anti-communist Law and Justice party wrecking the country and constitution over there.
Reply to BuxtebuddhaReply to Posty McPostface I'm so glad you two take my baseless assertions as plausible. I came discursively to that conclusion based on an extrapolation of Agustino's posts being representative of wider society and how people react to them here. You know, just like when I'd observe Trump and see how people react to him I can predict we can colonise Mars in 2023. Discursively.
I derived my conclusion based off of empirical experience and readings (almost daily) of the bitter sentiment towards anything smelling of socialism or communism (although 'Russian' sounds like a better label of hatred festering in the hearts of many in Eastern Europe). Yet, I understand your point in being that those countries are highly socialist anyway (despite their past), like much of Europe for the matter.
1) If you predicted Trump would win the overall vote percentage wise by any margin then you were more wrong than the polls were (on average). Therefore, we can conclude your contention you were more accurate than the polls is false.
2) If you predicted Clinton would win the overall vote percentage wise, none of your so-called reasons for your prediction that Trump would then win the presidency make any sense as they are all based on overall popularity and other generalities, such as intensity, energy etc. Therefore, we can conclude your contention you were more accurate than the polls based on your given reasoning is false.
3) You didn't consider a percentage wise prediction. Therefore, we can conclude your comparing yourself to polls is meaningless as they are statistical tools that predict on the basis of probabilities and can only be judged numerically.
What was your percentage prediction? And did you have one or not?
You certainly are a very strange man. I answered this exact question just awhile ago. Quoting Agustino
I did not make predictions in terms of percentage points. My prediction was a slight win for Trump in electoral college (which is the only thing that matter as regards the election).
Why must meaningful methods be simply those that can be quantified?! :s This is pure scientism and it's completely unjustified. You expect me to prostrate myself before quantifiable ways of solving problems. I disagree on principle.
No - "winning the heart of a nation" means energising the people, and the popularity that you amass. This is not quantified merely by numbers of people though that is important too. It's also about the underlying energy - Trump supporters had more energy than the Crooked ones, they had more drive
1) If you predicted Trump would win the overall vote percentage wise by any margin then you were more wrong than the polls were (on average). Therefore, we can conclude your contention you were more accurate than the polls is false.
2) If you predicted Clinton would win the overall vote percentage wise, none of your so-called reasons for your prediction that Trump would then win the presidency make any sense as they are all based on overall popularity and other generalities, such as intensity, energy etc. Therefore, we can conclude your contention you were more accurate than the polls based on your given reasoning is false.
3) You didn't consider a percentage wise prediction. Therefore, we can conclude your comparing yourself to polls is meaningless as they are statistical tools that predict on the basis of probabilities and can only be judged numerically.
Sure, since when are only quantifiable methods of analysis valid? Since we subscribe to scientism? :nerd:
That's pretty much how Republicans win elections, just based on poor young voter turnout.
Republicans tend to win based upon the failure of Democrats to reach out to old white guys, but instead convince themselves that that largest segment of the population can be overruled by cobbling together every minority.
Randomly using the word "scientism" is not going to get you out of this. Anyhow, what you're saying now is you simply guessed Trump would win with no regard to percentages, but for the wrong reasons (you thought he was more electorally popular, but as it turned out he was less electorally popular as he lost the popular vote - maybe you just discovered this today). But as I told you more than once the scenario of Trump winning was given a 1/3 chance by the poll aggregator 538 and others (they even specifically gave a much higher than historically normal chance of Trump losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college and wrote numerous articles on that). So, your guess doesn't even contradict their predictive spread of possibilities. The only thing that differs is they weren't burdened by your false reasoning which should have led them to the conclusion that Trump would win the popular vote. That, even though it would have correctly predicted a Trump presidency, would have been a larger statistical mistake than the eventual predictive discrepancy in the polling. So, again, no matter how you paint it, you were more wrong than the polls in every way that matters statistically, and your reasoning for your prediction (unlike theirs) is incoherent, suggesting all you did was guess and were right by accident.
So, what are these non-scientific methods of predicting results you want to talk about and when can we test them out? I'm ready to go anytime.
Republicans tend to win based upon the failure of Democrats to reach out to old white guys, but instead convince themselves that that largest segment of the population can be overruled by cobbling together every minority.
Except that Trump won a huge amount of minority votes. Gimme a break.
"We’ve written about this before, but I wanted to call your attention to it again because the possibility of an Electoral College-popular vote split keeps widening in our forecast. While there’s an outside chance that such a split could benefit Clinton if she wins the exact set of states that form her “firewall,” it’s far more likely to benefit Donald Trump, according to our forecast. "
Oh, and that's exactly what happened...
So while all Agustino could give us was vague hearts and minds platitudes pointing in the wrong direction (a popular vote win for Trump) and no specifics on percentages, while accidentally, due to the quirks of the electoral college, getting the basic result right, smart people doing real intellectual work were making statistical and probabilistic predictions that turned out to be of actual use in understanding possible election day scenarios. That's not bad scientism, that's good science.
Several years ago, I attempted to order Campbell's chunky clam chowder online, the Manhattan type, which is tomato based, not the Boston type that is cream based. They were out of stock, but I asked that they tell me when it would become available. Well, it's here now at like $6 a can. Screw that, right?
Reply to Bitter Crank There is, but it's not popular, because no self-respecting person would choose Manhattan clam chowder over the superior New England variant.
More cool shit! Evidence that bioelectricity functions as a mechanism to control the growth of bodies. More reason to treat the organism as an integrated whole and put to bed the tired myth that genes dictate biological processes: "The extreme form of this view is “to explain everything by saying ‘it is in the genes,’ or DNA, and this trend has been reinforced by the increasingly powerful and affordable DNA sequencing technologies,” Huang said. “But we need to zoom out: Before molecular biology imposed our myopic tunnel vision, biologists were much more open to organism-level principles.”
The tide now seems to be turning, according to Herrera-Rincon and others. “It’s too simplistic to consider the genome as the only source of biological information,” she said. Researchers continue to study morphogens as a source of developmental information in the nervous system, for example. Last November, Levin and Chris Fields, an independent scientist who works in the area where biology, physics and computing overlap, published a paper arguing that cells’ cytoplasm, cytoskeleton and both internal and external membranes also encode important patterning data — and serve as systems of inheritance alongside DNA."
Actually, the main issue is that NYC has so many other things that make it the best city in the world. Manhattan Chowder is literally the last thing on the list. Literally. It doesn't even categorically exist, practically. It's non-existent.
There's probably more intestines available to consume at fine dining spots and local hole-in-the-walls alike in NYC to make this statement equally true. My favorite taco joint a block from my job makes a killer lengua taco, and a killer buche taco. Just steer clear of the oreja.
Reply to Noble DustReply to Hanover
I prefer them both. I want to come back to 'Murica and live out of Greyhound buses until I get so caked in dirt they kick me off and I have to trek up to Hanover's hovel in the Appalachians to get a shower and learn the banjo. Where do you live btw Noble? And do you have a shower, a hovel and/or a banjo?
I quickly skimmed through this debate, and Dr. Craig completely humiliated Rosenberg :lol: Why is it that atheists always lose in debates? Maybe it's because their positions are so undeveloped since they don't spend much effort on something they don't consider important. I remember reading Rosenberg's book as well a few years ago (some atheists here "loved" it) and I also found it pathetic. One thing that stuck with me is his advertising of Prozac to deal with how sucky life is :lol:
What I find more baffling is how seemingly intelligent people - say Stephen Hawking - could believe similarly ludicrous things as Rosenberg when it comes to metaphysics. I mean some of these positions cannot even be taken seriously, and it should be humiliating for an academic even to spout such nonsense. For example - take the issue of radioactive decay as evidence for uncaused events which Rosenberg uses as an example to illustrate that the Universe could have began to exist without a cause. Even to make such a claim is ludicrous - how can a Professor spout such nonsense without even understanding it? Sure, radioactive decay has no efficient cause. But what about other causes?! Of course it has other causes! It doesn't just happen without the existence of such and such an atom... It doesn't happen haphazardly, without being governed by some statistical laws. It has at minimum material, formal and final cause (in being directed towards decay for example). So far from being an "uncaused event" as Rosenberg claims, it has its causes in the nature of the respective atom. Just like virtual particles have their cause in the nature of quantum fields - they don't spontaneously occur in the absence of such fields... I certainly hope that the 95% of top scientists who are atheists don't believe such metaphysical crap, since if they do, then I seriously doubt their intelligence.
Do they? Or do you either a) forget the debates where they won (confirmation bias) or b) disagree with the atheist and so side with the theist as a matter of principle (standard bias)?
There's a rather lengthy answer here that explains Craig's "successes":
Within debates, Craig uses the Gish Gallop, presenting a hailstorm of misrepresentations and dubious statements, wrapped up in a few obvious facts. Since rebutting statements takes up more of his opponents time than it took him to deliver them, he later is able to list out those statements of his which were not replied to, owing to the strictly controlled format and time limit in most debating environments.
He strawmans his opponents arguments and responds to them with an undertone of humour, thereby lessening the credibility of both. He also uses arguments from authority. In friendly audiences, this convinces the public of his upstanding honesty.
He quote mines extensively. This allows him to present his opponents past statements out of context, and out of line of any recent historical and scientific developments. Indeed, it is clear that he uses public resources (eg. Youtube) to gauge public opinion about his opponent, and this allows him to subtly attack his opponents reputation and character. For example, he praises Bart Ehrman for a minor shift in opinion that he made years before the debate date, and he is thus able to convince the audience that the morally and scientifically proper thing for Ehrman to do is to continue to shift towards Craig's position.
He appeals to emotions, and as in his debate with Bart Ehrman, tries to paint his opponent as a bumbling moron while he's the supposed academic scholar. When his opponents take objection to his tactics, he can accuse them of bluster. He disses New Atheist authors like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as[list]
Non-intellectual.
Angry and bitter against religion.
[*] He twists or ignores the rules of the debate (if any) and this gives him an advantage over his opponent, who is usually civilized enough to stick to the format. He takes a very brief part of his opening statement to state his own views, and takes the majority of the time speaking against his opponent. This has the following effects -
He is able to misrepresent his opponents views before his opponent has had the chance to present them himself.
By the time his opponent presents his points, the audience already has Craig's rebuttals in their mind, and hence they cannot truly analyze them objectively.
He is able to start his rebuttal period with a statement to the effect that he has not heard any rebuttals to his points, completely ignoring the fact that the time period for his opponents rebuttals is yet to arrive.
By the time his opponent begins his rebuttal, he is virtually back to his starting position in the audience's mind, due to Craig's double rebuttal.
Since he states his arguments very briefly, his opponent lacks sufficient ammunition to rebut them in any detail. Indeed, this lack of detail in his initial arguments allows him to present qualifications for them after his opponents have presented counterarguments. This provides the illusion of an adequate rebuttal and makes it looks as if his opponent has misunderstood or misinterpreted his points.
[*] After he strawmans and misrepresents his opponent's views, he then sets down his own set of points that he feels his opponent must prove in order to support his position. In most cases, those views have nothing to do with his opponents position and are completely different from what his opponent was going to assert. These points are usually absurd and in principle unassertable.
If his opponent chooses not to toe Craig's line and instead asserts his own points, Craig can then later list out his own twisted caricatures of his opponents views as points his opponent has failed to assert.
If his opponent chooses to try and prove Craig's points, he can rebut them easily as he frames them in an extremely biased way which makes them difficult or impossible to support.
[*] Thanks to the way in which the propositional statements of most controlled debates are framed, Craig is almost never in a position in which he has to simultaneously prove the existence of a god, and the assertion that the god is in fact the Abrahamic god.
This is advantageous for him because most of his arguments - the Kalam Cosmological argument, the Ontological argument, the assertion of the existence of Objective Morality, the Divine Command theory, the Fine Tuning argument etc. - do not point to the existence of the Abrahamic god, and can in principle, be used to prove the existence of any given supernatural entity.
Since his arguments for the Abrahamic god are extremely weak compared to his general arguments for a god, he never uses that line of argument against competent opponents like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, and only unleashes them against opponents who, at least in principle, believe in a higher power.
Another benefit in these oral debates is that the audience cannot hear if there is a capital "G" in "God"/"god" leading to an impression that Craig has argued for the Christian "God", rather than a generic "god". It also provides Craig with flexibility: If challenged, he can emphasise that he's not arguing for God/Yahweh, but a generic deity. If not challenged, it can easily appear to the audience that Craig has indeed argued for God/Yahweh.
In his debates on the existence of God/god(s) (as opposed to those solely on the historicity of the resurrection) Craig will even play on this conflation between generic deities and his Christian God by claiming that his arguments form a "cumulative case" for the existence of the Christian God. This is blatantly false as Craig's only argument for the latter is the circular one in which he posits that the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is plausible due to God's intervention, while he simultaneously claims that it proves the existence of God. Once this argument is dismissed, none of the other arguments are in any way cumulative, though Craig's audience, raised in monotheistic cultures, can easily get that impression.
[*] Craig frequently name drops, referring to the works of famous historians, theologians and apologists, in lieu of presenting an actual rebuttal to his opponents statements. This usually takes the form of "My opponent's arguments have already been replied to by XYZ famous writer, hence I will just make a statement that it is invalid, without actually telling you what that rebuttal is." This is the height of intellectual dishonesty because,
He completely ignores the facts that he is the one who is debating, not some long dead writer.
Some vague reference to a rebuttal is not an actual rebuttal, but in the eyes of the spectators, it is valid.
[*] Craig's debating style can basically be characterised as heavily dependent on aggressive U.S. high school debating tactics, something which most of his opponents are too polite to either stoop to or call out (one exception was the very blunt denouncement of Craig's tactics by Lawrence Krauss). Unless the audience is attuned to the polite phrasing usually employed in academia, the severity of the criticism levelled against Craig by his opponents can easily be missed.
[/list]
I was always wanted to find the perfect "Try Pots"
“Queequeg,” said I, “do you think that we can make out a supper for us both on one clam?”
However, a warm savory steam from the kitchen served to belie the apparently cheerless prospect before us. But when that smoking chowder came in, the mystery was delightfully explained. Oh, sweet friends! hearken to me. It was made of small juicy clams, scarcely bigger than hazel nuts, mixed with pounded ship biscuit, and salted pork cut up into little flakes; the whole enriched with butter, and plentifully seasoned with pepper and salt.”
-Moby Dick, by Herman Melville
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 15, 2018 at 13:05#1622800 likes
Here's what we were taught when we came across a situation like this. 1) Say "Has anyone called 911?" If not, call it 2) Then say "I know CPR, can I help?" Which letter is that? C I guess.
T Clark has proven that he gets to stay on my boat, in which one person needs to get tossed over in order for all left on the boat to survive! Well done! Well done!
I do wonder how many 'thinkers' are CPR certified.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 15, 2018 at 13:11#1622830 likes
Several years ago, I attempted to order Campbell's chunky clam chowder online
Were you on a deserted island? Stranded in a Hurricane?
As an adult, an adult who can drive, why would you ever choose canned soup?
What on Earth would make you even try Campbell's soup of any kind let alone Chowder? :brow:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 15, 2018 at 13:17#1622850 likes
Or I could just chuck hay bales for ArguingWAristotleTiff mebbe??
Without a single snivel? Just as long as your skin isn't as white as the underbelly of a Rainbow Trout because what would be a slight sun kiss on my skin, will put a paler person into a fit of Sun Poisoning that make sniveling seem like a cake walk.
b) disagree with the atheist and so side with the theist as a matter of principle (standard bias)?
They had a professional panel of professors/intellectuals, the students voted, and the internet voted. In all 3 cases, Craig won by a LANDSLIDE.
I do not particularly think that Craig is a great proponent of theism (I think his apologetics is popular level at best). Edward Feser is much better than Craig for example, and has a lot of theological depth to him. But he speaks at a level where you actually need some philosophical training to understand.
So I have no problem admitting that an atheist won a debate if I do indeed think he has done so. But the fact of the matter is that no atheist that I've ever watched has won against Craig. Hitchens has done well rhetorically, but not in actual substance.
Within debates, Craig uses the Gish Gallop, presenting a hailstorm of misrepresentations and dubious statements, wrapped up in a few obvious facts. Since rebutting statements takes up more of his opponents time than it took him to deliver them, he later is able to list out those statements of his which were not replied to, owing to the strictly controlled format and time limit in most debating environments.
He strawmans his opponents arguments and responds to them with an undertone of humour, thereby lessening the credibility of both. He also uses arguments from authority. In friendly audiences, this convinces the public of his upstanding honesty.
No, actually I've seen the contrary - his opponents strawman him. Rosenberg has repeatedly strawmanned Craig for example and failed to engage philosophically with what was said. Example: Rosenberg said that suffering and evil is inconsistent with an all-good, all-benevolent God. He never addressed Craig's rebuttal that the existence of the maximum good may entail at minimum the possibility of evil (since freedom is a good). Instead, he goes on a tangent about God designing a world where human beings would be inclined to freely choose just the good. But this misses the point - because morality means precisely doing what is good, even if it is not in your personal self-interest to do so. Rosenberg gives some stupid example of receiving $1000 for every correct answer you give to a simple arithmetic 10 question test, as an analogy about how a world could be designed where freedom would go hand-in-hand with doing good. His point being that nobody would answer the questions wrong, and nobody would choose evil. But that misses the point. Something is moral precisely because it is good regardless of the consequences it has on you personally. So if you always choose good simply because it is always in your self-interest to choose good, then you aren't really good. So God couldn't have created such a world, since it would not allow for morality. There is no Hercules without the Hydra and all suffering and the enemies he had to face.
Really, it's so ridiculous that it is actually shameful. The only thing that Rosenberg has proved in that debate is that he is an authentic ignoramus of the highest rank.
Etc.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 15, 2018 at 13:34#1622900 likes
I find Craig creepy. I suspect, like many outspoken religionists, he's more interested in self-promotion than religious devotion. Having said that, most of these popular debates don't involve very sophisticated arguments on the atheist side, and many of them are probably just selling books too, so it wouldn't surprise me if they often lose.
Reply to Baden Probably. Craig's responses weren't very great either. He missed many points that he could have scored. For example with regards to uncaused events, he did not ask Rosenberg what he means by "uncaused" and why he restricts causality merely to efficient causality. He could have explained the other forms of causality in this manner too. But his responses were certainly better than Rosenberg.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Certified in first aid for babies and children. First ensure safety for yourself and the victim. Then there's only one test before calling 911: is the victim conscious or not? If not, you first call them (preferably by someone else and then have them get an AED) and then start first aid. Check breath for 10 seconds, if irregular or absent, start CPR. Attach AED if present and follow instructions but usually it isn't necessary because it's a defribilator. It doesn't restart a heart that stopped beating and children's heart usually don't fibrilate.
Every debate on here between an atheist and a theist.
We never had any, except one between 180 Proof and someone else (not very capable) 2000 years ago.
In discussions, most atheists here are not very good. I would say on average, the few theists we have (Mariner, myself, etc.) are better capable of discussing issues of religion than your average atheist, who literarily shows very little, if any understanding of the underlying matters (no surprise, they think God is unimportant).
but for the wrong reasons (you thought he was more electorally popular, but as it turned out he was less electorally popular as he lost the popular vote - maybe you just discovered this today).
But as I told you more than once the scenario of Trump winning was given a 1/3 chance by the poll aggregator 538 and others (they even specifically gave a much higher than historically normal chance of Trump losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college and wrote numerous articles on that).
Then why were you (and the liberal media) so convinced he would lose?
That, even though it would have correctly predicted a Trump presidency, would have been a larger statistical mistake than the eventual predictive discrepancy in the polling. So, again, no matter how you paint it, you were more wrong than the polls in every way that matters statistically, and your reasoning for your prediction (unlike theirs) is incoherent, suggesting all you did was guess and were right by accident.
I was not doing statistics. The question was whether Trump would have won or not - I was not interested in what his "chances" of winning were. I was never doing statistics, or attempting to do statistics. My method was qualitative, not quantitative.
It is like in engineering - a good engineer can tell you that a structure will fail through a qualitative analysis, without doing any calculations. A dumb one needs to calculate.
Were you on a deserted island? Stranded in a Hurricane?
As an adult, an adult who can drive, why would you ever choose canned soup?
What on Earth would make you even try Campbell's soup of any kind let alone Chowder? :brow:
I was not on a deserted island, but if I were, I wouldn't bring a can of soup because I couldn't open it unless I had the foresight to bring a can opener, but if I'm one to have foresight, I'd instead bring maybe a phone to call and ask for help instead of a can opener.
Your attack against Campbell's soup is an attack against America. I'd ask that you take it back.
Of course, NYC is simply better than Boston in nearly every way.
For real, NYC is the best city on earth. I agree. I'd live there if it wouldn't cost me a million dollars to have a one room apartment that was converted from a tenement home.
@Baden@jamalrob@Michael - why would a PM conversation not have HTTPS protocol? It doesn't have HTTPS protocol on both my side, and on the other side, for the other person in the convo.
I'm not going to go in circles on this. The fact remains that you've given no basis to take any of your claims seriously. And it's pointless for you to talk about research methodologies when you've expressed no knowledge of what they are, how they work, how they are combined in practice and how they can be distinguished from the non-methodological guesswork that you did (according to your own description), which led you to the erroneous conclusion that Trump was more popular than Clinton (again, your stated reasons for predicting Trump's win point only to him winning the overall vote (which did not happen) and give no explanation of the actual split result (unlike the pollsters I mentioned who did account properly for this scenario)). Anyway, no matter:
Sure, we will test it. Next time an adequate opportunity comes along, I will let you know. We will need to gather a few data points though.
Sure. The point being that I'll use polls and you use whatever you want (just please don't call it "qualitative" until you can demonstrate you understand what that is. It's not a word you can just throw around to mean "non-scientific" as it doesn't mean that at all) and then we'll make a percentage prediction and see who is more accurate.
And the whole thing is in danger of being pointless otherwise. If you get a simple binary choice right, it could just as well be down to chance. If you want to do it without numbers, you need a wide range of choices with a realistic chance of each one being the successful one and poll data for each one which I can utlilize to make the comparison meaningful.
In NYC; miraculously, I do have a shower. I had to sell my banjo for rent money, though. This month the washboard has to go. It's all worth it, though.
And the whole thing is in danger of being pointless otherwise. If you get a simple binary choice right, it could just as well be down to chance. If you want to do it without numbers, you need a wide range of choices with a realistic chance of each one being the successful one and poll data for each one which I can utlilize to make the comparison meaningful.
Yeah, to a certain extent. It wasn't always a binary choice - I gave the Juve example. There were others in football.
You and @Baden have very strange personalities. Statistical analysis, scientific thought, etc. have their uses. However, intuition also has its own uses. For example, say you are diagnosed with a serious life-threatening illness that is officially incurable. Then you will fight with your whole being - mind, body, soul, all your energy to solve the health problem. To survive you need to channel this tremendous energy, and give your entire being to it. You will probably read everything you can find about the condition - but a time will come when you have to drop the reliance on authority since the authority has failed to find a way. You yourself have to find the way if you are to survive such a crisis. Then you are truly living - when you have abandoned your reliance on authority, and are finally finding your own individual way. You have to give up and cast out of your mind the thought that 90% of people diagnosed with it die, for example. You cannot look in the statistics for an answer, for what you are seeking cannot be found in statistics. In such a situation, you finally have to think of yourself as an individual, and disregard everything that isn't related to you and your condition as individual.
The pundits - they all look to the polls to predict election results. Then their jaw drops, and they return to telling us how great the method is after the election result comes through. Just like the two of you. You weren't around back then Maw, but Baden was. And guess what, he was shouting from the roof tops that the election is finished, Crooked has won, that we're wasting our time, etc.
In NYC; miraculously, I do have a shower. I had to sell my banjo for rent money, though. This month the washboard has to go. It's all worth it, though.
Dayuuum... that's not good ma dawg. Have you looked into moving to a cheaper part of NYC? Or sharing with a friend?
However, intuition also has its own uses. For example, say you are diagnosed with a serious life-threatening illness that is officially incurable. Then you will fight with your whole being - mind, body, soul, all your energy to solve the health problem. To survive you need to channel this tremendous energy, and give your entire being to it. You will probably read everything you can find about the condition - but a time will come when you have to drop the reliance on authority since the authority has failed to find a way. You yourself have to find the way if you are to survive such a crisis. Then you are truly living - when you have abandoned your reliance on authority, and are finally finding your own individual way. You have to give up and cast out of your mind the thought that 90% of people diagnosed with it die, for example. You cannot look in the statistics for an answer, for what you are seeking cannot be found in statistics. In such a situation, you finally have to think of yourself as an individual, and disregard everything that isn't related to you and your condition as individual.
The pundits - they all look to the polls to predict election results. Then their jaw drops, and they return to telling us how great the method is after the election result comes through. Just like the two of you. You weren't around back then Maw, but Baden was. And guess what, he was shouting from the roof tops that the election is finished, Crooked has won, that we're wasting our time, etc.
That's funny. I was shouting that because I didn't rely enough on the polls which were telling me Trump had a decent chance of winning (about 1/3) and that a split vote was highly possible. I was relying mostly on my intuition. My bad. I should have listened more carefully to what the more reliable pollsters were saying. (Although after Comey hit Clinton with that curve ball in the last week, I felt it was much more in play anyhow tbh.)
That's funny. I was shouting that because I didn't rely enough on the polls which were telling me Trump had a decent chance of winning (about 1/3) and that a split vote was highly possible. I was relying mostly on my intuition. My bad. I should have listened more carefully to what the more reliable pollsters were saying. (Although after Comey hit Clinton with that curve ball in the last week, I felt it was much more in play anyhow tbh.)
But at the time, you were telling us that this is what the polls are saying! So what happened? Did you change your mind? New polls came in? You didn't study the polls enough?
Again...what the polls predicted happened within the margin of error: 538 were 1.5% off and that threw up a scenario they specifically said was significantly likely. But my own personal view was stronger than the polls in favour of Trump losing. My intuitional bad as I said.
Reply to Agustino Intuition has some practical uses (see Thinking, Fast and Slow), but is severely limited as a method of epistemological certainty (see Thinking, Fast and Slow, and The Perplexities of Consciousness).
Intuition is not helpful in predicting elections, and whatever that farrago on an "incurable illness" you were prattling on about above.
Intuition has some practical uses (see Thinking, Fast and Slow), but is severely limited as a method of epistemological certainty (see Thinking, Fast and Slow, and The Perplexities of Consciousness).
Hmmm, yes, if achieving certainty is your goal, probably intuition isn't as useful (by its very nature). But if taking good decisions is your goal, then intuition in many cases is very useful (in some cases even more useful than other options).
Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy Cool right? I read, not too long a ago, a great book that discusses in pretty accessible terms, the science behind how kinesins like those work: this one. Highly recommended if you're interested in learning details.
Certified in first aid for babies and children. First ensure safety for yourself and the victim. Then there's only one test before calling 911: is the victim conscious or not? If not, you first call them (preferably by someone else and then have them get an AED) and then start first aid. Check breath for 10 seconds, if irregular or absent, start CPR. Attach AED if present and follow instructions but usually it isn't necessary because it's a defribilator. It doesn't restart a heart that stopped beating and children's heart usually don't fibrilate.
You Sir Benkei, may be the Captain of this vessel. Well done!
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 16, 2018 at 13:05#1626100 likes
Your attack against Campbell's soup is an attack against America. I'd ask that you take it back.
Thank you for asking me to take that back but alas the truth is the truth. Campbell's soup is a can of sodium with a dash of veggie water. So bad for you :sad:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 16, 2018 at 13:07#1626110 likes
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind
Blood in the streets in the town of New Haven
Blood stains the roofs and the palm trees of Venice
Blood in my love in the terrible summer
Bloody red sun of Phantastic L.A.
I'll split one with you tomorrow Maw. I'll be cooking an Irish dinner of Corned Beef Rubens, sliced thin, sauerkraut and Swiss cheese, on toasted Jewish Rye with Thousand Island dressing served with little red potatoes.
This is interesting to me: my Granny's recipe calls for Russian Dressing where mine is Thousand Island. But if I were to use hers I would be:
Celebrating an Irish holiday using:
German sauerkraut
Swiss cheese
Russian dressing
Jewish rye
It would appear the only thing from Ireland is the potatoes and here in the states they are likely from Idaho. :lol:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 16, 2018 at 13:28#1626180 likes
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind
Blood in the streets in the town of New Haven
Blood stains the roofs and the palm trees of Venice
Blood in my love in the terrible summer
Bloody red sun of Phantastic L.A.
Is it a Springsteen song?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 16, 2018 at 13:30#1626190 likes
Have you watched the film "Hall Pass"? A guy in that talks about this sex thing called "fake chowder".
I cannot say that I have but having a ranch full of males, chances are it has been on the tv at one time or another because I surely couldn't have come up with that connotation on my own. :yikes:
Although I'm sure they exist, I've never had good clam chowder or raw oysters outside of New England. Even here I've had some bad ones. I'll put in a plug for Legal Seafood's fish chowder. I moan when I eat it. Never had good crab cakes except around the Chesapeake Bay.
Reply to Noble Dust Perhaps slightly overpriced, yeah. But not terribly unreasonable given that pastrami sandwiches at Jewish delis in NYC will generally cost between $15-20, and Katz's serves the highest quality pastrami.
Just curious. Does anyone here from the US actually own a gun? I'm probably moving to Las Vegas in the near future and the idea has crept up on me given the relatively high crime rates there. It's likely that I'll move to a gated community so there really isn't any purpose for home defence. But I am still contemplating getting a concealed carry arm just for safe measure. Thoughts?
Well, the place isn't a warzone. It's just that I'm frightened of crime, and have lived most of my life in crime free zones. Comparatively, Las Vegas isn't as 'crime free' although, I've analyzed some crime maps and have looked at safer areas to live in, in the area. Living in a gated community would be a plus also, so realistically, I might not even need a gun as long as I don't expose myself to situations that would entice having one as a benefit.
How do you feel about the substitution of Cole slaw for sauerkraut?
Mmm no. I love cole slaw and dislike sauerkraut unless it is on a Ruben. But cabbage in general is never cooked in my kitchen. Ugh.
@Hanover
You had me at Pumpernickel! I have met very few people that like Pumpernickel bread, what a wonderful creation! Many more people are willing to compromise on the Marble Rye and think they are going to win over a Pumpernickel loving person but alas they are mistaken.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 17, 2018 at 13:04#1629690 likes
Why would you move to a place requiring you to act as if you are in a warzone?
Are you saying that Las Vegas is a "warzone"?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 17, 2018 at 13:21#1629720 likes
The idea of Las Vegas being seen as a "Warzone" reminds me of a song lyric that I shared with sheps, as we have a love for Pavarotti in common. In a translation of Ave Maria being sung in a duo by Luciano Pavarotti and Bono there is line of lyrics that stuns me still.
Ave Maria
Where is the justice in this world?
The wicked make so much noise Mother,
The righteous stay oddly still
With no wisdom all of the riches in the world leave us poor tonight.
It's strength is not without humility
It's weakness an untreatable disease
[b]And war is always of the choice
Of the Chosen who will not have to fight.[/b][i]
[/i]Ave Maria
For me Pavarotti was not an Opera singer but rather Pavarotti was an Opera~ :heart:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 17, 2018 at 13:26#1629730 likes
David Dennison :lol: will get screwed by Avenatti, who is like a bull, a real fighter. I can already feel it. The more they fight him, the worse it will get.
But cabbage in general is never cooked in my kitchen.
Love cabbage raw. Love it steamed. Love it in a salad. Love it with lots of black pepper. Love it in coleslaw as long as it's not mixed with other vegetables and the dressing is just mayonnaise and vinegar.
unenlightenedMarch 17, 2018 at 17:30#1630610 likes
Here's one for the conspiracy theorists. Big data is stealing your mind and your elections.
Comments (61561)
I’m sure there are endless entrapenuership opportunities here...
NYC has its own vibe, last time I was there it was pretty good and friendly, but its been awhile and things change. Still Broadway, the NY Stock Exchange, the Village, MOMA, MET, all the great places, it hard to imagine another city quite like it.
Never having been in New York, I was amazed to meet up with a person I had not seen for a few years while going through the airport for the first and only time.
Wonder who I would have met if I had actually gone downtown. :roll:
I do. I’m not sure how long I’ll remain here, and I’m not sure how healthy it is for me. But there are some incredible things about it, and I’ve met some incredible people.
Don’t miss the wine scene! Pretty much the best in the world. And yes, I would sorely miss the food if I left.
I haven’t been; I work on the retail side of wine which means I don’t get out to wine bars for some reason. My friends and I like to have wine parties where we seek out deals on obscure bottles.
Quoting Agustino
Was Hanover talking about Atlanta or New York?
Why would you want to go to a city where everybody knows you? You wouldn't be able to get away with anything.
Someday I might yet visit New York. I have been there before, but the list of things I want to see has changed quite a bit--like the top of the former American Radiator Building (called something else now) and the CBS building -- influenced and designed by Saarinen, I want to say I at least saw the Statue of Liberty (even at a distance -- don't have to kiss her big toe), the Gownus Canal (it has a history)--stuff like that.
When I was younger I would have wanted to go to St. Marks Baths and other gay sleaze boutiques, but now I'm too old--and it's not there anyway. (Yes, I am -- at 71, one has to just exude savoir faire from one's pores to have a good time in these places; I don't.) Plus, there's lice and bedbugs to think about. I'll go to Stonewall Inn as an obligatory act of pilgrimage.
Not that interesting; it just smells. You can view it from the heights of the new Whole Foods, though.
Great beer is all about the water source.
So what?
So as someone who greatly prizes entrepreneurship opportunities, I would imagine that fact might change your mind, if only slightly, about NYC. NYC is also not full of smoke, btw.
Why do you say NYC has great entrepreneurship opportunities? As far as I know, NYC is an expensive city - this is something that makes starting a business more difficult by requiring a greater starting capital. It is true that you also have access to greater resources (in terms of hiring opportunities, financing opportunities, etc.) but it is not clear that this alone makes it great. It's also more competitive than other places.
And of course entrepreneurship isn't everything about life.
The access to greater resources correlates with the higher costs; it's the same across any discipline. The result is both higher risk and higher reward. And the competition actually is another correlate; higher competition means higher quality output. It's harder to fool some suckers in NYC than it is in Eastern Europe.
Quoting Agustino
Right; it's basically nothing within my life, for instance. :rofl:
Hmmm, are you sure? :rofl: Eastern Europeans are paranoid, they are used to get the midnight knock on the door from Communist times. These people are tough - not easy to fool. For example, Eastern Europeans usually don't even respond to emails unless you call them first or they know you. People from the West seem a lot more gullible from this perspective for sure.
Well, how sure are you about us Westerners? Maybe we're both making rash generalizations.
The generalization about New Yorkers, though, is that they don't take no shit.
:rofl: Was he naughty boy? Next time you must ask him to inform you!
You mean that fine little pom called Janus?
Maybe she's taken a trip to Uranus
The poor lil' bitch
Will gave you an itch
'Til a fart in a crowd makes her famous
I've always thought you were one of the moderators. Might be the authoritative style.
because of your comment..
@Janus, wow man, someone just called you a dog, you're gonna let that slide man? :snicker:
:rofl:
Different Janus, man; I've never been to Uranus. Different gender too, the slur to the cur was to a bitch, not a dawg. :joke:
They say you can take the bitch out of Chicago but you can never take the Chicago outta the bitch. :wink:
I absolutely LOVE the vibe of the city, it has a heart beat that runs at a much faster pace than those in the burbs. I love the culture literally at every corner in Chicago, I love the attitude of Chicago, I love the hustle that makes Chicago run, I love the ploy of non expectation of tipping and often basing the tip upon the execution of that ploy. I love the train ride, I love people watching, I love passing the neighborhoods seeing how it changes as we pass into a new one. I love short but meaningful interaction with people in the city and how genuinely warm most are and how easily it is returned to me.
When I first moved out to Phoenix I was told that my speaking style was "curt" and although I agreed I realized I needed to put a 'filter' in place to actively sound pleasant and friendly. Now? The nice filter remains in place but every so often, when my wick has been shortened too many times, by too many uncaring people, that bitch attitude from Chicago shows up and I go off. Kind of a reset and it is usually at the right person but at times it comes out sideways.
Human I am. :hearts:
https://www.facebook.com/thephilosophyforum/
What Mr Maw said. It's nothing personal, but Facebook must die.
Didn't have much time, so I'm still in the first chapter. I very clearly do not know enough about French Structuralism or Saussure to make an educated commentary as of right now. Since the next chapter is on Husserl I hope this will change a bit.
I do intend on making an "Introducing Akanthinos to Derrida" thread in the following next days, and will likely require your assistance at that point!
Ah, thanks! I'll try to power through them.
Now, just to be sure I understand this, we he refers to the sign as deceased, and as this death as the precondition for it entering language, is this death only the general determination of the meaning of the sign? Is death here just a flourish stand-in for entropy?
This strikes me as wrong. Force could be conceptualized through the description of the objectual intuition. This seemingly would be hard to achieve in regards to objects of literary criticism, and furthermore harder to achieve without breaching the terms of the reduction.
It also strikes me as quite hard to believe that D. passes from this criticism to the subject of the founding metaphor of Western civilization being that of light and darkness, as phenomenology's defect in conceptualizing force means that this metaphor cannot be exploited to it's full potential.... Surely D. knew of Merleau-Ponty's works... ? I can hardly think of any other philosophical "school" which would be better placed to attack the theme of light and darkness!
(1) Re: light and darkness - wait for the fuller discussion on light that takes place in the "Violence and Metaphyscis" essay (the one on Levinas), where Derrida puts more meat on the bone you refer to.
(2) Re: 'deceased', 'death' is Derrida's somewhat overwrought term for that which allows any sign to be de/recontextualized, so that it may mean something else, something other. It's a bit more complicated than this (Derrida is always keen on distinguishing his position from that of simply affirming the polysemy of words, because he's after isolating the conditions of polysemy, as it were, and he's also suspicious of the wholistic overtones of the idea of 'context'), but that's a rough - very rough - starting point.
(3) Re: force, let me quote John Protevi on this one: "For Derrida, however, force, while marking the breaking point for consciousness, its point of inscription in a world of force that robs it of its pretensions to self-mastery), remains an inarticulate ('mystical') other, even as the disruption of consciousness by force is affirmed in welcoming the other" (Protevi, Political Physics). Again, the discussion of Levinas later on in the book is apposite to this.
Our page on Facebook page is not trash! :sad:
And might I add that those who might be taking a break from the boards here are often found there and are some of our most loyal readers. :heart:
Your work is much appreciated. By some of us at least.
Thanks! :party:
Quoting Sir2u
Hmm... a matter of seconds.
Quoting Agustino
And boy am I grateful!
Quoting Sir2u
Yeah, it's noticeable, isn't it? Since I've been fired.
Quoting Sir2u
Ooh, administrator now? Well I never! Here's the deal: if you can't take it - and you clearly can't - then don't dish it out. Don't ask for it and then complain when it turns up. Don't spend your precious time going out of your way to call attention to - and remark disparagingly upon - a post of mine by way of its reply (perhaps you've forgotten or thought that I wouldn't notice or that I wouldn't respond in a similar vein) and maybe I'll do likewise. That sounds like a fair deal to me.
Just another Manic Monday....
Embrace the absurdity of life :up:
Much thanks! The audience we do reach is pretty stellar!
Carmalita by Murray McLauchlan
(I like Warren Zevon's version of it in the link)
Aww, get over here and give us a cuddle, Mr hypocrite.
If you'll put your pricks away first. :eyes:
Who is us?
:rofl: I don't use FB anymore either - except, every now and then, as you say, for promoting other people's businesses :lol:
Don't mind them. They are just for display.:wink:
Obviously not you.
:grin:
A welcome distinction. :up:
:brow: , did anyone suggest me?
I'm a hamster, hamsters don't like spiny hedgehogs cause they can't ride on their backs without being impaled by sharp things. Not good.
Coming from someone whose posts are typically a horrific composition of poorly researched word salad, insults and emoticons this is a bit rich.
Hmmm but being a hedgehog you still have tiny spears on your back on which hamsters can get impaled :confused:
Why, are you jealous that I can get done in a few minutes, with just a sprinkling of emoticons and no research what it takes you hours of wasted time to do? :blush:
Delusions of grandeur suit you. Cry harder, nerd.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Oh, the irony!
See here. ;)
Because that character is a parody of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Ah cool - don't forget you're speaking to someone who almost never watches TV ;)
I thought you wanted less obnoxious references for context, not more.
Uh, got there before me.
Yes, I expect you to say that of all the people who agree with you :P
Conspiratorial thinking doesn't suit you.
PF isn't a warring tribe of philosophical allies and enemies, it's a bunch of people who share a hobby doing something they love. As much as I think you're an ass for 'attacking posts' by breaking them down into decontextualised fragments - replying to the letter more than the spirit -, and when you make these 'I'm better than you' posts which are trolling-as-means-to-disavow-responsibility for negative affect, I still think you have interesting things to say and usually read your posts.
I think you'd do a better job - I'd certainly find you more pleasant to engage with - if you cultivated your interests in philosophy by discussing it charitably rather than treating every prolonged discussion as a battle of wits. I'm sorry for responding to your put downs in kind, it's an easy trap to fall into. Sometimes I'm a bit of a shit too.
When I share a link in a post, I want to provide context for something I believe is unclear. I don't think of it as a game of 'you wanna disagree with me? disagree with these references' which I literally do for a living. I put in a lot of effort to avoid that rhetorical trap in my posts here, so that if I assume familiarity with a concept I'll reference it (and usually try to provide a condensed explanation), or if I'm relying on a fact I'll try and cite it.
I don't think you should glorify the absence of research in your posts as a personal strength, if you put more effort into researching them and trying to understand 'your opponents' as 'fellow travellers' I think you'd get less vitriol in response. Unless of course you're fully aware of this and want to cover the floor in piss.
You seem to glorify facts. I am uninterested in facts since everyone knows them or can gain access to them when they need them. That is why I ridicule your approach - because I disagree with your way of approaching problems. You think knowing more facts can settle the issues that are being discussed.
Quoting fdrake
I do research stuff, but I feel no need to cite it. I don't need anyone to agree with what I say. If what I say is the truth, and you disagree with it, then it's your loss. And if what you say is the truth, and I disagree with you, then it's my loss. I can accept that, I have no anxiety about being wrong and paying the price.
Quoting fdrake
I do not want to give "my opponents" an easy time - progress cannot be made that way.
Quoting fdrake
Now it certainly makes sense why you have so many links in your posts. I do appreciate the self-awareness :joke:
That is also the same reason why I don't use links in my posts.
:lol: :lol:
Quoting StreetlightX
No worries, it was funny. I like how much outrage a simple comment has caused, which wasn't even that offensive to begin with, more of a funny remark. :lol:
As tempting as you make it to see you as an adversary, I won't do it. I'm sorry for responding rudely.
No, I think careful interpretation of facts - being informed by them - is what it means to take a reasonable position on something. The facts don't fully determine their own interpretation. If I use a word or reference a concept that I think is unlikely for all readers to have seen or to already understand, I'll provide a condensed description and a reference if I can find one. This way, if someone comes along and says 'fdrake, you're misinterpreting this idea' or 'fdrake, you're full of shit' or 'fdrake, you're being needlessly pedantic' I like to be able to evaluate if I am full of shit, needlessly pedantic or whether I've got legs to stand on or not. I also enjoy engaging with people's references when I have the time. So, posters like: @Maw,@StreetlightX,@Baden,@apokrisis, @VagabondSpectre, @photographer (I miss him), @180 Proof (I miss him too), @csalisbury (I miss him), @Wayfarer, @unenlightened who put a lot of effort into their posts to make them informative, concise and grounded. Even if I disagree with them on lots of things, they're usually good fun to read and I learn a lot from engaging with them.
I really don't understand why you're attempting to take a principled position against producing well referenced and well researched posts. If you were anyone else, I would sound the troll claxon, but I'm pretty sure you're being sincere for some reason.
There's a big difference between giving a careful refutation of someone's ideas and insulting them. I really don't see the point, if the references piss you off so much don't engage with them. And please don't mistake me putting effort into a post, providing references or the theoretical background I'm using for it as an attempt to brow-beat someone into submission.
Well, hurrah for your personal integrity I suppose. I feel similarly, with the caveat that I try very hard to at least set out the conceptual background for the disagreement, with references if possible. I don't want to sit on a pile of books like a hidden throne.
Though, to be fair, I've definitely tried to browbeat a particularly arrogant undergrad statistician away from their ridiculous ideas with literature before on here. Don't remember the name, so instead of insulting them I gave them lots of homework.
The only thing worse than someone being wrong on the internet is someone being wrong about me on the internet.
I was trying to remember the name of the person who had Hulk Hogan as their avatar and was a legit philosopher of language, but it didn't come to mind. Also... that Bolshevik physicist dude whose office coffee machine kept breaking. @Postmodern Beatnik too.
When did I engage with them? :rofl:
Quoting fdrake
Why are you making such a big fuss about it then? I said something that you obviously find to be untrue - why is it then that you lack confidence in yourself and write a huge post in reply to a mere 10 word comment? Do you need to prove yourself to me, or to other people, or what is at play here? Why do you give so much importance to my comment?
Quoting fdrake
No worries, I did not interpret it that way anyway.
Quoting fdrake
But people can certainly look for references themselves if they want to read more about it. On the other hand, it is simply a well-known psychological fact that length implies strength, sources imply authority, etc. I know this, I use it when I market stuff. Some people here already find your writing very strong, some of them no doubt for these very reasons. And this has nothing to do with whether they're stupid or smart themselves - human beings react, for the most part, in the same ways to such triggers psychologically. In fact, the smart ones are probably even dumber - they are not even aware that they fall for such things anymore, because they are too enthralled by their own intelligence.
Quoting fdrake
So then this seems to be just a way to justify yourself. Why do you need to justify yourself?
Quoting fdrake
Because insight is not contained or achieved through more research and more facts. If it were, then we would call the encyclopedias wise, but we don't. Wisdom is achieved mainly through living and reflecting on life. I have not seen much of that in your posts. You post a lot of facts, but little wisdom - of course, that is just my opinion, but you asked for it so I told you - do what you want with it.
Eh you're right. I'll walk away.
Please do :up:
That’s the worst kind of revenge. I can’t believe how mean you are! :gasp:
I don't think they actually did the homework. My hope was that they would discover their errors as they progressed in their education and then maybe remember the post, come back to it and go 'hey, this is cool'. But that's a pipe dream.
Name had an S in it...
This line gets my vote as the best insult of the week.
I agree with everything you wrote about why you're here - that's why I'm here too. We can talk reason, rationality, and logic all we want, but eventually it has to come back to the world we live in. People like you who have deep knowledge of how the world works make a huge difference in the quality of the philosophy here.
EDIT: I see Csal visited 4 days ago. Photo hasn't been around for 2 years.
I don't think @fdrake was just responding to you and I didn't find his response defensive. At the risk of being presumptuous in interpreting him - He was describing the purpose and value of this forum and, more broadly, reason.
:chin: lol.
An expat Powell called Baden
Whose Bowel was particularly Laden
When he pushed one out
out popped a scout
And in scoutin' for boys he was tradin'
There you go, quoting Aristotle again. Or was that Kant?
Judging from the way he was typing (last posts that I remember in 'I am an Ecology') csal was having a rough time of it. Hope they're doing better!
It wasn't Wosret was it?
179 results for Aristotle
248 for Kant
232 for Plato
342 for Schopenhauer
225 for Spinoza
106 for Wittgenstein
etc.
I know :wink: I was just using your comment to shamelessly plug The Philosophy Forum Facebook page!
Warmest wishes
I remember Wosret, it wasn't him. I searched the members list and couldn't see any Hulk Hogans. If it helps anyone remember them they were very knowledgeable about semantic externalism/internalism debates and usually advanced a 'coherentist justification is refuted by Lord of the Rings' argument. I think @Banno and @Lone Wolf had extended coherentist justification and semantic externalism debates with them on the old forum.
Someone with the same avatar. Maybe a different person.
YES! Thanks! Shame Schlitz didn't make their way here.
That'd be boring.
Ironically, I had gotten you and Schlitz confused previously.
Ah, sorry.
That happened a lot. I had the Ultimate Warrior in a top hat as an avatar, he had Hulk Hogan eating spaghetti. I think it's time I became the Ultimate Warrior again.
I wasn't trying to make a serious point, just teasing a bit.
Aha, so I ain't crazy. :cool:
You may have been thinking of @Wolfman.
Yes, one of the first, if not the first, discussion I had on PF was with him and a few others (including @Soylent and @Mayor of Simpleton ) on ethics. Was impressed from the start.
Hurry up and wait patiently....sounds like a moto for many parts this journey called 'Life'. :heart:
Yes! That's the one. Thanks! Props to @Wolfman
Loved Wolfman! Loved! Loved! Loved!
Thanks! :)
Can you young whippersnappers please keep the noise down. We really old guys are trying to nap.
You made me smile~ Thank you T Clark!
Thank you for your birthday wish and what a way to end a shout on! :clap:
March is a good month for birthdays.
How about a homework help request category. It is annoying when people ask for help without being up front about it.
If I remember correctly, the old forum had an unmoderated discussion category. Even banned people were allowed to participate. There are some people I would like to continue talking to who have been banned, usually with good reason. There are touchy issues I would like to discuss which I wouldn't want to take over the forum.
Fisking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk#Fisking
Is Fisking considered a bad thing? I use it sometimes when the post I'm responding to has a lot of moving parts.
:cool:
I have never considered it.
Quoting T Clark
That depends on your ethical theory, and also on the context. It may be a good response in a particular case, and a bad one in another, according, at any rate to my own ethics.
Quoting T Clark
But not this time, evidently.
Quoting T Clark
Well it is only to be expected that a post will garner a response tailored to that post - that, surely is what it means to be responsive.
Quoting T Clark
Parts can be enumerated in many ways; you may have thought that you expressed a single or possibly a dual parted response, but as you see, other analyses are perfectly possible.
You might, on further reflection, wish to add fisking to your pet peeves, even though you confess to indulging in it yourself.
Better than Fisting, no?
Yes, or wrecked in the wrong um...
The eyes always have it - it's all about the eyes, windows to the soul.
That's not to say it doesn't have its uses. As you said, it's great for removing the "fat" off an post in order to better focus on the crux of the argument. I'll use it if context demands, but generally I try to avoid it.
What forum do you recommend for...um...Janus? The Dirt Forum? You play there, no?
Ha, ha, ha, ha. I get it.
I think what I have always called, and will continue to call, a line by line response can be really clear and effective. I don't know why it would be considered as otherwise.
The forum of civil engineers - we're the only ones who would put a sewage system in a playground. And of course I play there - I am a civil engineer, don't want to forget what I've learned!
I agree it is not useful in all situations. Maybe I like it more than you do.
Sounds good, the civil engineers are usually more copacetic than the uncivil. :nerd:
As the name suggests you can look at it both ways. I am really no Jain though. If I were I would not be able to survive as a landscaper! As for Anus...well, yes, I do have one, thankfully. And I'm not about to let any Fisting disturb its smooth and efficient functioning, if that's what you had in mind...
Really??? I thought the shoutbox was the place to take a rest from "quality", and give the darker forces a bit of a run....
One of my favourite quotes - always worth sharing.
Cheers, Cuddles. :hearts:
Result: :broken: ? Or worse?
You must mean To Mega Therion
Yes! That's the one.
Irretrievably broken body?
I don't know the answer to that. A broken heart can usually be mended; but I guess it could be irretrievably broken, too, which might be just as bad.
You are right, I can't take. But there again not many people can take the amount of stupidity you spout.
I can't find an answer to that question. :smile:
One of my dogs died too today.
Couple of months in my case.
It knocked a tub over on itself when it was in the yard, got trapped and got heatstroke. Found it too late. Died at the vet.
So am I.
Have you read Philosophers Dog by Raimond Gaita? I can't describe it, but sometimes I would interpret his intelligence as an almost awareness that would conflict with my philosophical position on such a subject.
It would have taken only a small amount of time for that to happen, so sorry to hear that.
Sorry to hear about yours too. :pray:
Well imagine that it was a serious discussion, and you wanted to respond to each of my points, and maybe make a couple of points to some. If you also used the same technique, and in each case quoted your fragment, a fragment of the response, and your counter, followed by another fragment of response and your counter, the whole thing would become unreadable in very short order. It is as if one is having five or more different conversations at the same time with the same person, and because one really cannot respond in the same way, it is actually a form of bullying, in my opinion.
Sorry to hear, that is very sad :( Hope you feel better soon.
Remember the conversation we had awhile ago when you said you feel invulnerable now, and I said that when tragedy happens this will no longer be the case? We are all only human, so we'll keep being affected negatively by tragedies, there seems to be no escape from that. It's part of the human condition.
Quoting TimeLine
You shouldn't really blame yourself, animals and people can get sick for all sorts of reasons. It was probably just his time to go and it was just a coincidence that this occurred around when you went to Hawaii. He was quite old, wasn't he? :confused:
Quoting Baden
Sorry for that man, may he or she rest in peace. Do you bury animals over there or what's the practice once they die?
Oh yeah, definitely man. I tell you, those civil engineers also have them math skills - first subtraction, then division for access, and finally avoidance of multiplication. It's all there.
No, please don't do that, I don't want this place to become, as Trump would say, a shithole.
Edit: looks like Baden beat me to it.
Man, the ressentiment on these forums is sometimes amazing. Nietzsche was right. Listen to this - complaining that it's difficult to respond to precise point by point arguments, therefore those who make them are morally inferior to you. Oh man... *facepalm* :rofl:
Quoting Baden
Why the dogs??? :( We had to put my Corgi down last year and it was just about the saddest thing I've ever had to do. They're family, and it sucks. But my God the good times are good.
:broken: @TimeLine {{{{{Huggss}}}}} Agustino is right in that your going away for a bit is not what caused his passing. Animals and humans make the choice, between them and their maker alone, to depart on their terms at the time of their choosing. It bites, it sucks but love will come again in the form of a floppy eared furry friend that licks your nose! Until then embrace the memories, keep the pictures up and try to remember the good and goofy times that made you laugh and love~
:heart: :heart: :heart:
Is that between them and the Primordial soup?
Yes, it's a more precise way of addressing what someone has said.
Most often, in my experience, it is not. Thoughts often take more than a sentence to express, and habitual Fiskers break up these thoughts so as to make easy points, even sometimes breaking up sentences, not only paragraphs (which is bad enough). Fisking is facile; it's too easy. It's the fallback tactic of the pedant, and pedants love to glorify their pedantry by calling it precision. It feels kind of fun when you're doing it, but this is an indulgence to be resisted.
But sure, sometimes it's useful.
I do hope you are being extremely sarcastic as the math requirements for a bachelors degree in civil engineering for your sophomore year at my sons college is MA 345 Differential Equations and Matrix Methods and that is after you breeze through Freshman math of Calculus and Analytical Geometry I 4
MA 242 Calculus and Analytical Geometry II.
His freshman math class has him so far out into the Physics end of it that he literally has to "come down" to do easy math as you suggest like multiplications and addition. No doubt he can do it but he has to come so far back to where the rest of us are, it is just easier for us to do the simple math for him.
What counts as a different conversion is ambiguous. Is it a different conversation if it's a different topic? Is it a different conversation if it's a different aspect of the same topic? Or is it all in fact the same conversation from the beginning because it's the same back-and-forth dialogue that's been going on? However you categorise it, that isn't in itself a bad thing. It's a sign of an analytical mind to break things down like that.
It simply isn't true that one can't respond in the same way: that's a choice. Nor is it true that it's a form of bullying. I find that ludicrous, although this isn't the first time that your hyperbole has evoked such a reaction from me, and I doubt it'll be the last.
Exactly.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, it is a choice, but it's a lot harder, since you actually have to think, and work out your thoughts to create a coherent whole, you can't just vomit something on the page.
Yeah well I disagree. To state that thoughts often take more than a second to make is of course true, but misses the point. A stream of thought can and should be broken down if that's what's required to address each and every point within that stream of thought that is of significance and therefore worthy of addressing.
You may find the style that we're talking about annoying, but I find it far more annoying when someone doesn't respond in this style and ends up missing important parts, or ends up half-addressing them inadequately by way of a general comment that only just scratches the surface.
When I choose to respond like this, it is in essence no different from that other way of responding. I'm breaking down your reply into sections, and dedicating paragraphs to those sections. The only real difference is that I'm not providing that context in the form of a quote above each paragraph. That is a superficial difference. It is a difference which should make no real difference. So, by my reckoning, making it a gripe or a pet peeve says more about yourself than anything or anyone else.
As for what you claim about motive - that this style is adopted in order to make easy points - that's nothing but speculation, and uncharitable speculation at that. You don't know what my motives are, and you should give me the benefit of the doubt unless or until you get a clear indication to the contrary. Certainly this style of writing alone is not a sufficient basis to be making that judgement.
I call it "precision" because that's what it is. Coming up with a similar and related word with a negative connotation attached doesn't really detract from this point. It just brings your personal judgement into the mix.
Of course you do.
Quoting Sapientia
Whereas you are somehow free of personal judgement? What you are saying might, as usual, be accurately rephrased as "I am right". Well, okay.
I didn't expect you to get it. My post was not for your benefit.
By the way...
Quoting Sapientia
I said "Thoughts often take more than a sentence to make".
The only time I think fisking reliably produces insightful commentary is if what someone is saying can be mapped onto series of easily related propositions or it is informative to condense what someone is saying in that way. The overall texture of philosophical discussion very rarely resembles a demonstration of this sort; it much more commonly resembles charting the features of a landscape than positioning yourself and your target as antipodes along its borders.
Fisking itself is very close to providing a sequence of negations, people fisking each-other rarely make conceptual moves towards the other's positions, this gives chains of fisking a habit of returning to points they believe they have already established and defending them against an onslaught of (already refuted) refutation. In this sense it privileges already established positions and their conceptual allies, and produces orbits of debate functionally equivalent to iterated 'I'm right and you're wrong'.
Yes, so you did. Although apparently your post was not for my benefit anyway, but for some other unnamed individual or individuals instead. So I think I'll leave it to them and spend my time elsewhere.
And it's a lot easier to twist such a reply into "I am right". That regurgitation, at least to me, is a sign of a lack of analytic skill, or perhaps simply a sign of laziness.
In general the principle of charity is pretty much dead on the Internet.
Exactly this. There's nothing worse for a philosophy discussion than 'fisking'. It saps the life out of conceptual development and blunts to the point of atrophy the mutual exploration of implications and ramifications - the very lifeblood of philosophical discussion. Fisking is what happens when you've stopped doing philosophy to become a two-bit haggler in the marketplace. Not that a bit of two-bit haggling every now and then isn't good for the soul.
It shouldn't be on a philosophy forum.
I don't see the problem. How else are you supposed to address the different parts of someone's post?
:up:
I second this thought.
That you frame your 'defence of fisking' as an opposition, rather than as as an inclusive disjunction (possibility of a mixture of methods) is something responding like a fisker is giving you, you're framing the 'anti-fisking' responses as simple negations of your view with simply opposed properties organised in dyads. Precision/imprecision, coherent/incoherent, on topic/not on topic - these dyads aren't the allies of fisking or non-fisking strategies of debate and apply more broadly than is suggested by the framing of the issue induced by your style of response.
Not doing so in the way being discussed leaves one vulnerable to missing out something of importance, which can be frustrating. Any manifestation of an aversion to precision is likely to have that effect. I've experienced it more times than I care to remember.
Quoting jamalrob
It's good you recognize how powerful fisking is.
No, they're not used as an "if" at all. That's your assumption, and it's wrong. If it's a preconceived notion then it's also a prejudice.
Cool, but note that it's not your fisking that I expressed admiration for, but the parts of your posts in which you launch into your ranty opinions, where you take risks. The very opposite of fisking.
You have to understand, Tiff, math requirements for engineers are generally the same for all disciplines for the first couple of years. The most important thing to remember is not what is in school, but what is in practice. Civil engineer's like simple equations - F = MA. We don't need no stinking differential equations. If, by some chance, we find ourselves doing calculus, we know something has gone wrong. Now that we have calculators and Excel, we don't even need to do arithmetic.
Am I oversimplifying? Of course. But I'm definitely not being "extremely sarcastic." Don't get me wrong, I love civil engineering and know lots of very smart, competent civil engineers. CE is a very concrete discipline. And I don't mean a mixture of cement, aggregate, and water. It gives us a chance to help people in very down-to-earth, day-to-day ways. Roads, sewers, water systems. We solve problems on a very practical level. I was born to be a CE. I hope your son was too. It's a good career and you earn enough to raise a family if that's what you want.
What makes a fisk a fisk? That should come before any talk about a mixture of methods. Does it hinge on appearance or method?
If it's the former, then it's a rather superficial distinction, wouldn't you agree? I don't see it as an obvious hindrance to provide visual context by way of multiple quotations. Quite the contrary, in fact. Although, doing so isn't necessary, as is obvious, and as can be demonstrated, and as I have demonstrated here once already.
If, on the other hand, it's the latter, then it seems that A) more of us are fiskers than might be willing to admit, and B) being a fisker, in this sense, is nothing bad. Or, is it bad to analyse dialogue and dedicate paragraphs to distinct sections of relevance, irrespective of whether or not those dastardly quotations happen to make an appearance?
Quoting fdrake
They're no more "induced" by my style of response than the "dyads" of others - pedantic/not pedantic, easy/hardwork, and so on - are "induced" by theirs. This bears a relation to thought, to a way of thinking. It bears little-to-no relation, as far as I can discern, to one's style of response, let alone one particular style as opposed to others.
You will also educate me a little more in civil engineering, which I guess isn't bad for a failed engineer like me :rofl:
Quoting T Clark
Oh yes - they're afraid complicated stuff opens up the possibility of mistakes. Making assumptions is what civil engineers love to do to simplify stuff.
And it definitely gets us in trouble sometimes.
Yah, the uncertainty and also the inability to do it on your own is something that pulled me away from civil engineering. Although, I've learned a lot from civil engineering in terms of how to approach life pragmatically, and deal with uncertainty in (more) reasonable ways.
Although I have not had the additional education that would be required to practice as one, the branch of civil engineering I enjoy most is geotechnical engineering - soils. That is one place where dealing with uncertainty is a way of life and occupational requirement. Takes some balls.
In university geotechnical engineering was my favorite! Though I've never practiced in geo. But yes, I remember that dealing with soils employed a lot of empirical equations and plastic behaviour that can't be readily found in other materials. Also, factors of safety were much bigger. Though I will say this, even though I worked awhile in on-site stuff, I always had greater trouble in understanding the components of a building and how they fit together. I could do the general level calculations, but when you added stuff like bolted connections, etc. I wasn't comfortable.
In geotechnical engineering, the problems were both more complex, and simpler paradoxically. I could always get my head around stuff like say gravity retaining walls, including their design, much better for some reason.
But there was some stuff that I never understood well - like flow nets. I didn't even get what they were supposed to do, I skipped that class :rofl: .
I was thinking the same thing. I guess it could be passive-aggressive and obstructionist, but I had never thought of it that way. Sometimes, for me, there is too much going on in an argument to deal with it all as one piece.
Quoting Agustino
QED.
I'd go further and say that there's always too much going on in an argument to deal with it all as one piece. But it can be a matter of convenience.
That's genius, man! :yikes:
Eh, maybe you're right. I still don't think you'd be responding like this in an exegetical discussion. Lurking beneath the water here is 'Sapientia is good, fdrake is bad' and 'fdrake is good, Sapientia is bad'.
Yeah. Definitely degrees of fisking. The Youtube Atheist community is a fiskfest, breaking up a response into salient elements does not always a fisk make. Poster's intent matters too.
Quoting StreetlightX
Agreed. It generally adulterates online philosophical conversation.
What do you think about Tiff's response? She thinks the civil engineer's skills are too basic... :nerd:
Scary. :worry:
You mean, like, if we were examining a text without having a stake in the game? Possibly. But, of course, I do have a stake in this game, given that I have, virtually since I began frequenting forums such as this many years ago, tended towards a style of reply which is akin to that known as "fisking", and given that I see merits in this style of reply in contrast to other styles of reply. So, from the outset, before I even added my two pennies worth, there was an implication of "Sapientia is bad".
Quoting fdrake
Yes, I agree that there are degrees, and I think that that's important to note. Not only are there varying degrees, but there are likely unclear and borderline cases. After all, what exactly makes a fisk a fisk has, as far as I'm aware, yet to be vigorously defined. (And yes, I also agree that intent matters).
If you narrow the field to include only the most extreme examples - or if, as unenlightened has done, you actively set out to give an uncharitable reply in a rather self-defeating attempt to emphasise the flaws alleged within a certain style of writing, and use that as a basis upon which to judge - and to prop up attacks on - that style of writing - then I can relate more to the way in which people have reacted to it. But that isn't a method of analysis which I would recommend, as it lacks impartiality and merely tailors a result in line with ones agenda or preconceived views.
Genius of the Dirt Forum...too basic for what?
Quoting Caldwell
So I guess you'd have to ask Caldwell.
The spammer? We didn't have anything in place to defend against spam. I turned on spam protection today so I'm hoping it won't happen again.
Is this a customizable anti___________ plugin?
Ideally, I personally think, that Philosophers should allow for, if not encourage growth, especially when it comes to movement on a fundamental topic for a forum member.
This is where this "one person must lose, so that the other person can win" instantly shuts down any conversation or discussion along with sharing any movement that may have been started.
Why? Change, especially on a facet of life so ingrained in people requires a gentle, logical, empathic response for what others see as 'the better way'. Gloating about a "win" of another person's movement on a topic is worse than a non starter but it encourages a shut down of sharing any change.
"I've realized that debate is very hard to do here. Before, I argued a lot and never got anywhere. Now, I more or less just state my opinion and clarify my position if prompted. There's a certain degree of snootiness that accompanies an intellectual pursuit like philosophy, which means that the number of twits with holier than thou attitudes is high on a forum like this. Plus, not everyone who posts here does so for the same reasons I come here to, which is to expose myself to different opinions and see if something I think gets objectively torn to pieces. Others, I think, come here just to "hear" themselves talk."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/159486
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/159480
In my experience, the most fruitful discussions are ones where people ask a question instead of positing a position in the OP. Sometimes we also have remarkably honest political opinions that they resonate not because of their rigid rational exposition but on an emotional level. Those tend to be more fruitful as well and I think that's just likability as we recognise something humane.
Ugh. Kill it with fire!
I had one ready. I think it just exploded though and took the insultometer with it. Back to the fallibility of human judgment. :(
It's not about insulting me, but literarily almost every post of his I read is an insult towards someone he disagrees with. Whether that's Peterson, myself, etc. is less relevant. If you didn't notice this, then I'd recommend a new pair of glasses :kiss:
Take this anti-Trumpers. May be the first President in 30+ years to have adequately dealt with North Korea.
Hasty generalization.
Benkei is not very literary, though. :joke:
No surprise there.
Instead of getting defensive, have a look at Maw's comment history. You'll soon realize the implication of your claim - that most (or even a large proportion) of his posts contain insults - is just wrong.
[hide]
I fell like reposting Buxte's gif to that, but OK. :ok:
This sign means something bad in certain parts of the world :rofl:
"The greater the ambiguity, the greater the pleasure." :)
(Milan Kundera)
Very pomo of you. See, I was right :ok:
Oops...
There were some huge gaps pre-2014. I reckon I got 80% of mine though. Surprised they were even still there.
Did you have an orgasm just now?
Jelly(fish)? :chin:
Yes. And seeing as I am a transgender African Chinese deaf tour guide, it was even better. If you want to consider how it felt, think about a safe space that you never have to leave. Just magical.
How did you manage that? I have tried a few times using several different methods and gotten nothing.
I registered for a new account using the Google option (the only way that worked) and then searched for my old handle and went through the posts page by page. Very time-consuming but it worked.
Options > Download all your posts as a .txt file
Can you login with your account? I forgot my password, the email I used, etc. :rofl:
Yeah.
Quoting Agustino
How many do you have? Just try them all in the Forgotten Password page until you hit the right one.
I may have changed email for fear of it being sold when Paul transferred ownership :rofl: - if I did that, it might just be a random email that I don't remember. Oh nevermind - I seem not to have changed it and got the right one now. Well, they say they sent the password, but no password arrived yet. Not in junk, not in inbox, not anywhere :confused:
Quoting jamalrob
Only the moderators for the most part, which seems fair. I'm surprised they didn't ask you mods to sign agreements that you won't leave for a period after the sale. That's what I would have done.
What would be the incentive to sign it?
They misspelled "Pat Robertson".
If it was me negotiating, I'd ask the owner to negotiate with the mods and get them to sign the agreement (I don't care if he offers them part of the money, or puts some conditions in place for me that the mods want me to follow, etc.) before I give him the money. It's stupid to buy any kind of operation without making sure that the key people that make it work remain in their positions for at least 1-2 years.
In fact, the old owner remaining for 1-2 years would be one of the key conditions of the sale. He would be responsible to make sure that the site works securely, etc. before those responsibilities can be transferred. Maybe part of the money would be released only after this period. There's a name for this in the business, but I forgot. Nevermind, it's earn-out payments.
Paul offered. They ignored him.
:rofl:
Unless, unless the purchase was meant to fail so they could take it as a tax write off against money they were probably hustling off of someone else.
Come on...Agustino, surely you have had to "offset" financial gains somewhere in your self employed travels.
That's why I make use of accountants :wink: . And actually, right now I'm running all my businesses through LLCs for some similar reasons.
Though to be honest my grasp of accounting principles is terrible. I literarily have no clue what my accountants are doing which is why I got in trouble awhile ago :rofl: I just know how to get clients and do projects, and if that goes right, then everything else tends to take care of itself.
Having said that, now I'm not sure that this works as you describe it. So you say that they're buying the website for 20K to later write that off as a loss and offset some other taxes on some other financial gains that they have. So the 20K can be used to offset potential tax losses larger than 20K? Because otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to spend the 20K (which is itself an immediate loss).
There's also no evidence that they intended to do this with the website. In the beginning, they even made accounts and introduced themselves. So I highly doubt that people make terrible investments that can never be recovered (basically throwing that money away) to offset financial gains. They even spent time to monetize the website and introduced ads.
Internet Research Agency
:eyes: for who?
You understand more than you give yourself credit for. :wink:
Example: An owner of a franchise that owns 12 year round permeant brick and mortar stores. During that tax year the brick and mortar stores are profitable and the owners are required to pay 35% income tax on the profit on their stores. If they only maintained the brick and mortar stores and nothing else and they had a good enough year, the profit will be taxed at 35% or higher.
Now take those same 12 profitable brick and mortar stores and add in three seasonal "Kiosks" in three different malls and figure in those profits or losses and the final profit might not be the same. If the Kiosks are profitable okay but if they are a loss? Meaning it cost more to rent the spaces, staff the kiosks, purchase the computer equipment to run the kiosks, the transfers to and from the 12 year round stores and the closing of the kiosks at the end of the season, the inventorying all the product coming back into the brick and mortar stores and you my friend have made a risky investment.
In fact,operating those three seasonal kiosks might just eat into the 'profit' of your 12 brick and mortar stores and if they are a big enough loss, they might drop you back down below the next tax bracket, maybe below the 35% tax bracket. Business loss can be a personal gain.
But business accounts are independent of your personal tax accounts? No?
In all other cases, it doesn't really make sense. Yes, you can use write offs in case a risky investment doesn't work out, but you wouldn't do it just for the purpose of write-offs, knowing full well in advance that it would be bad.
In the case of the 12 profitable B&M stores - suppose you have the option of running your kiosks profitably or purposefully making them come out as losing money. Unless it moved you from one tax bracket to another, or the capital costs are justified even in the future (you can make profitable use of that equipment later on) there would be no reason to run them negatively. Suppose my profit would be X without the kiosks, and it would be X-C with the kiosks. Suppose the profit from running the kiosks profitably would be X+P. Then clearly your EAT will be 65%*(X-C) vs 65%*(X+P) (assuming a 35% tax) -> the last one is clearly preferable because it's greater.
I asked because it's a general social skill to follow up with a question like "what sort of business do you do" when the person is talking about his business. It shows an interest in the person. Feel free to use it next time you're talking to someone.
Anyway, you bring it up all the time, and it would be interesting to know more precisely what you do, although maybe this violates the anonymity boundary that keeps us all safe at night.
Sure, but the reason I asked you why was because I've publicly said what my business was several times on the forum. Just like you've said that you're a lawyer. So if I were to ask you what you do now, after all this time, you'd probably find that a bit strange no? :sweat:
Quoting Hanover
Sure, thanks for pointing that out. I do apply it when I don't know what the other person is doing and they're talking about it.
Quoting Hanover
Privacy is one thing, I wouldn't want to say the name of my company or describe my business model for example. Describing my business model in its details is dangerous - it invites competition. I know several online business owners who will not even state their industry. Even the lawyer I hired recently, whom I had to detail my business model to, I made them sign an NDA.
But regardless of that, the other thing is that I'm not sure what you'd want to know about my business apart from my industry. If you have any specific questions I might be able to answer.
Mmmm, do you want a golden shower? :rofl: :lol: :rofl:
My business model is to have more revenue than I have expenses.
This is pretty baffling to me, because I used to work at an advertising agency that specialized in website development, marketing, etc. and I can't think of any proprietary business model within that industry that would deter you from sharing your website or company name. How do you advertise yourself? How do you show your product set and services to customers? How do potential clients know how to contact you?
Exactly, so you're asking to find out about my business model. How I make it work. I can't tell you that, sorry.
Quoting Maw
Well, there are several reasons:
1. Privacy (including not linking the opinions I express here with my opinions as a person)
2. I don't try to keep my company information secret - for people to whom this is relevant information. You're not my customer, you didn't get in touch with me through another website, I see no reason to give you access to such information, especially publicly.
3. Business models don't need to be "proprietary" not to be shared. Maybe they don't teach you this at Harvard, but you certainly learn it on the street building a business. If you knew someone's business model, then you could run the business yourself. I spent time and worked very hard to gain the knowledge that I have. I'm not planning to give it away for free.
For example, awhile ago I asked Posty how he and a friend of his who run a supplement store generate their leads. I didn't get an answer to this day, and I totally understand that. They worked to build the business and they don't feel like this is something that can be shared. Good for them, they deserve to keep it to themselves!
Yes, I said I am a civil engineer BY DEGREE, not a practicing one.
If you don't want to share your company because of personal privacy, then that's totally fine, I understand that. But I'm not buying these other excuses. They don't make sense from a customer acquisition standpoint.
Oh really? You've worked in marketing - what's the number one sales rule? Don't target people who are not prospects (likely buyers).
If Agustino doesn't want to share his company details, don't try to force him to, even if he's being a patronising bugger.
Yeah I understand. The number of times I've tried to manoeuvre someone into doing something they don't want to through reason is pretty high, so I'm a hypocrite here. Even if you see someone's preferences as inconsistent, it isn't nice to inflict/highlight (depending on viewpoint) cognitive dissonance on them for their choices unless it's necessary for some reason. I'm sure you agree with this and I'm preaching to the choir. :)
They are not inconsistent. I have seen no entrepreneur ever advertise their business randomly on the internet on forums that have nothing to do with it. If this was a marketing forum, sure, quite likely. But it's not. Maw is just talking crap.
That's a general rule of thumb. Don't advertise to people where there's no gain (since they don't need your services, etc.). Doesn't matter that it's free. Information is only provided if people need it, not absent of need. Maw isn't my customer, he's not a lead, not a prospect, not anything. Moreover, he may even be a competitor (and if there was a way to block website, etc. just from competitors, yes, I would definitely do it).
I didn't claim your preferences were inconsistent. I claimed Maw saw them as inconsistent and was attempting to make you do something you didn't want to through reasoning about it. It doesn't matter if you're being inconsistent or not, you don't wanna do it, and there's no good reason to press the issue.
Quoting Maw
LOL - how do you know who my customer base is? :lol:
Yeah.
:rofl: okay man.
I talk about business here because philosophy requires me to reflect on life. So that's necessary. I also talk about it to help others who want to start businesses, I think the world needs more entrepreneurs not less. I don't need to advertise here to get clients. That's silly.
:rofl: Privacy stuff is more relevant not for business (in business it doesn't really matter that much what your personal beliefs are), but - if, say - I ever decide to run for public office then certain things could be problematic - especially since some of the things I say on this forum are experimental, and not what I actually believe (most often this is not the case, but I do sometimes argue for positions that I don't support) - so it wouldn't give a fair image.
How else do you start the monarchy? :chin:
Now personally, I don't think strange women lying in ponds distributing swords provides a basis for a system of government, but it's another strategy for sure.
:rofl: LOL! You have an imaginative mind, I must say :lol:
But we need to be a little bit more pragmatic than that. You cannot change the system of government without first wielding power yourself.
Yes, or you know, the monarchy bit can even come later...
[i]I can take about an hour on the tower of power
Long as I gets a little golden shower[/i]-
Frank Zappa
Thanks.
Tried that already, did not work. I cannot even see the post.
"You do not have permission to view this section of the site. "
That is all I get from the site now, even when they let me sign in.
Obviously, by some watery tart throwing a sword at you.
Like this?
Maybe; what's wrong with mine? I suppose it's not all that verbose.
Are you asking me?
If so no - that wouldn't be a worry.
Listen -- pulling swords out of rocks is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical strongman ceremony.
Quoting unenlightened
See, this is what I love about unenlightened. He actually is quite a smart guy who understands how things work. :wink:
;)
Oh.... how do you do?
Oh I always thought Trump was leftit. Either that or a right tit. Some part of the female anatomy anyway, it's what makes him attractive.
You're hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
I'm advocating for an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We'd take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs and by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major foreign policies.
If you really believe that, then you've fallen prey to some weird conspiracy stuff :lol:
Quoting Maw
Well I believed Trump would win, as @Baden can testify (I still tease him about it)! Although there is a difference between believing Trump will likely lose (which wasn't an unreasonable position), and believing that it is effectively impossible for Trump to win (as many leftists believed - and that was absolutely irrational).
I actually have little respect for many of today's intellectuals, precisely because they are gadflies on the establishment and nothing more. Most do not pursue truth anymore - with the exception of a few like Taleb, or Réne Girard or even Peter Thiel.
Massachusetts towns are governed by town meeting/selectmen governments. As time has gone on and government has gotten more complicated, it has often become unwieldy. Additional layers of hierarchy have been added - representative town meeting membership, town committees, separate government for schools, town administrators. If a town gets big enough, it can become a city and have a mayor and city council.
Going to a town meeting in a small town is an eye opening experience. It can be frustrating as debates bog down in history, personal animosity, and petty issues. On the other hand, after sitting for several hours listening to really intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable mechanics, business owners, homeowners, and landscapers you get a feel for the real power of democracy. People governing themselves.
Can't tell if you're being facetious.
This popped to mind as peripherally related. I recently read "What is Life" written by Edwin Schrodinger in the mid 1940s. He, the very well-known physicist, wrote about genetics, heredity, and the nature of a genetic code a decade before DNA was discovered. From what I understand, his book was very influential. It's also wonderful. He writes so clearly, colloquially, and humorously. My point - generalism has a lot to offer. People who can see the bigger picture can change the way people think about important issues.
No, it was not to you. It was a reply to someone else but for some reason the link is not there. No idea what happened, sorry.
Philosophical adventure is just a game of mental gymnastics. Wisdom helps one become more capable of fully living life.
My favourite Ray Brassier quote.
Maybe, but then this sort of thinking you talk of is of no interest to the living. I am a living being, I understand and feel myself as a living being. I am concerned with life, and thought is of no use to me if it doesn't relate to life. If thought doesn't make me more capable, if it doesn't make me enjoy life more, if it doesn't make me more alive, then why do it? Reason is in this sense always a servant, always responsible merely for providing the means to reach life's ends.
Maybe Plato wasn't such a lame-o after all.
:lol: - there is one sense in which Plato would agree with what you said in the previous thread, since philosophy is the love of wisdom, not its attainment - there is always more to explore in the mystery. This is contrary to totalizing systems, like Hegel's, where the goal becomes the definitive attainment of wisdom as such.
Quoting StreetlightX
What is the body? If the body represents that through which one acts & lives in the world, then absolutely a slave to the body, how could it be otherwise? One cannot even begin to think without such a body.
It's nice that you read it that way! Most people read the notion of 'love of wisdom' as those who strive to attain it; but ????? (philos) is friend - the philosopher is a friend of wisdom, wisdom's fellow-traveller, doing what friends do: provoke it, annoy it, tags wisdom in memes. That said, I begrudgingly agree that Plato was right about this, which is rare, because I think the best way to go about doing philosophy today is to take what Plato said, then do the opposite of that, then set it on fire, just in case you get any Plato juice on you.
Quoting Agustino
Yes yes but who said anything about being nice to it? But don't get me going otherwise I'll start talking about transcendence-in-immanence and nobody likes that.
Indeed; who said anything about that?
lol - I approach philosophy differently than you. I'm interested in philosophy because I'm interested in life, and I noticed in my teens that philosophy helped me become more capable at whatever I was trying to do. So I've stuck with it ever since, and it has helped me in most things, including in business. So I always see philosophy through those lenses.
And I have a question: why do neo-marxist postmodern traitors so universally suffer from suffixtualizationalistic syndrome? The way they nounalise verbs adverbialistically, and vice versa don't half make it heavy going. Why is it not possible to raise a problem, without problematising it?
Why not?
Quoting unenlightened
To where? :gasp:
And breathe what?
Well, still good that you have the necessary connections to get close to those spaceships I guess...
I blame the Germans. German grammar has a quirk in which you can compound words like you wouldn't believe, so you get words like Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften which means 'insurance companies providing legal protection' or [i]Siebentausendzweihundertvierundfünfzig[/I], which is literally the number 7254. Now you can imagine what happens when you start writing philosophy with access to a grammar like this. And further, what happens when you try and translate these words into English, or French. This isn't the only reason, of course, but it's one of them. Also fucking Hegel.
There's a joke here about compounding the problem, but I'm much too tired to make it.
"I pulled in to Nazareth, was feeling 'bout half past dead
I just need some place where I can lay my head
'Hey mister, can you tell me where a man might find a bed?''
He just grinned and shook my hand, 'No'' was all he said..."
Don't you think if Trump pulls off a game plan for the denuclearization of North Korea that he would be as eligible for the Noble Peace Prize as much as Obama was for....what did he win the Nobel Prize for again?
@Baden
Make sure you wipe the coffee off your screen before responding, electronics are not fond of hot caffeine. :gasp: :lol: :rofl:
I think if he does that successfully, then he SHOULD get the Nobel Peace Prize. But I doubt he'll actually get it - the Academic elites hate Trump.
Well, Obama clearly didn't deserve the prize at the time and did nothing afterwards to justify it either, so it wouldn't be hard for Trump or anyone else to be as eligible.
As for a game plan, I don't think Trump has one. That may be why it seems to be working. But if war on the Korean peninsula can be avoided, by all means throw whatever silverware you want at him.
(You need to work harder to shock me. Maybe suggest we give the prize to Wayne La Pierre? ;) )
It's hard to have a ready-made plan when you're negotiating. All you need to know is things you can compromise on, and things you can't compromise on, that are your objectives in the negotiations. And then, as Trump says, "we'll see what happens".
It's The Band, but I can't actually remember the song title, now that I think about it.
Excellent article!
The Weight.
I agree Obama didn't deserve it when he got it. If he did deserve it, it was for the Iran deal with a side of Cuba. On the other hand, some of the things he decided in the Middle East count against him.
Love German. Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung - Speed limit. My favorite - Fausthandschuh, which literally means "fist hand shoe", meaning "mittens."
Haven't you used that joke before?
Oh wow, real talk, I was just thinking of that tune recently, because I witnessed a soul-crushing cover version of that at a show I worked recently by a brass band, and I couldn't remember who it was. Thanks for the post.
Quoting T Clark You got it! Excellent!
"I see my light come shining
From the west down to the east
Any day now, any day now
I shall be released"
Hanover, can you explain to me what is happening in life that causes the light to come from the West down to the East? Is this a funeral song?
Hey! It is good to see you on the boards! How has life been treating you?
Thanks, I miss Mongrel...
I can mention it to her. She is on TPF Facebook so are a few of our others that are taking a break.
Sometimes I think I can read minds; but, no I don't think she knows this. I'll give it a look sometime. Kind of stranded here on my own island. Looking for someone to be in company with.
{{{{{Posty}}}}}} <<<< online hugg
Oh, but what about self reliance and American Transcendentalism?
1971
"I see my light come shining
From the west down to the east
Any day now, any day now
I shall be released"
Vietman
Talking points my friend, talking points. Sometimes you gotta fake it till you make it.
So then this is a happy song?
Wallows in despair.
A question from one to another, have you ever let your need to "wallow" play it's way out?
I learned a tool in CBT that taught me to set aside an hour at the end of every day as "Worry time" because worrying about something I cannot control is a nasty habit of mine.
You start your day telling yourself that any worry that comes into your mind has a time and a place to address it but this is not the time, rather set it aside till my "Worry time" which was at 6pm. It was hard at first because of all of the worry I had running though my head and to let it go till the end of the day seemed risky, as though my worry in the morning would be gone by night, no such luck. I ruminate on long term situations, usually out of my control worry.
Till I learned this gem of "Worry time" which you could use for "Wallow time".
I chose 6pm and everyday for an hour, I had to force myself to sit down at the kitchen table with no other distractions with a yellow legal pad and a pen. For that hour, I had to list every worry that I had through out the day until I had exhausted all the worries, then I could get up. But as soon as I heard another worry come into my head, I had to sit down and add it to the list. Repeating that through out the one hour of "worry time" that I had to write them down.
I had to do this for about two weeks to convince myself of the ability to set aside a worry when it came into my head. I had to tell myself "No, you have a time set aside to worry, now is not that time so don't let it occupy your daily life." What I found was that as worried as I had allowed myself to get, before implementing "Worry time" was a lot more rumination than individual worries. This became obvious as when I sat down, I would write down every worry I could remember and what would have occupied my mind all day was less than a half a legal page long. Actually I am being generous, it was like a quarter of a page. The first few days there was a lot of up and down, forgetting this stress or that and I was surprised when I read back over the stresses of the past few days, during the "Worry time" and found a pattern emerging. There was very little variation of my worries from day to day, based upon my own notes that exhausted my worries, in fact they were almost identical.
Once I saw that for a week my "Worry time" and notes didn't change much, I no longer wondered what it was I was worried about all day, invading my every moment of quiet time in my head, it was almost all the same set of worries.
I know this is not your first rodeo and I know you know how rumination can run your daily thinking, but this tool, this movable mind fencing, will corral those thoughts into a circle of fencing and will slowly get smaller till you get those worry/wallow horses back into the barn where they belong. Ride them daily but only during your designated time, because as sure as the sun rises, they will be waiting for you when you return from a wallow free day in life.
Not so much so...It is a protest poem about being sent to East, and the fear of death, of being released from life.
Wow...I was really hoping against all hope that it was a good side of war but I don't think there is a good side. :broken:
It was not a just war, if such a thing is possible, maybe WWII.
Yet my Uncle left Loyola University in his Senior year to enlist.... it confuses me...
I can tell you that both of my children have made it abundantly clear that they will not fight another war, on another countries soil. They would only enlist if it was fighting on USA soil.
In the same breath, both children have made it clear that they do not want to remain in America. The last 20 years has not been a very good representation of what America can be, I will give you that, but what I try to explain to them is that my Great Grands came over through Elis island from over seas because of what they had there and what they saw in America. I ask my boys to give it a little more time before they bail on being American....time will tell.
My youngest is wanting to move to New Zealand and my oldest to the Netherlands.
Where did I go wrong? NicK says we should see this as a reflection on our parenting, that our children are stable enough to want to adventure out on their own, not just in the USA but I worry....
I have yet to see an example of a "just" war. :chin:
First, thank you for your caring response.
Before I start labeling issues with terms derived from psychiatry, I think there is the psychological issue of, well, feelings of helplessness. Yeah, I know, that's just called depression another way. This might sound odd; but, I like my depression. It reaffirms my (rather plain and unfulfilling life). I don't like change and if I can I will shirk from it when possible. So, there's that issue with self esteem and confidence or lack-thereof.
If I could put this another way, my depression has turned narcissistic, as I am going on a limb here and assuming that a great deal of depression is narcisstic. Take for example the following thought dialog that may play through other people's heads also.
*Oh, darn, I feel depressed again.*
That's alright, it's not you, it's the world. You can't change the world, so your depression is justified.
*Yeah! Fuck the world. I hate it. I'm just going to spend my day finding more justification (read rationalizations) for my loathing of others and the world.*
Good, just don't turn the feeling on yourself and let the world get to you. Remember, it's not your fault the world is fucked up the way it is, so you're in the all clear
*You bet ya, I don't feel that terrible after all now that I know it's not my fault; but, other people and their attitudes of malice towards others, carelessness, and selfishness.*
And, so the attitude of a person itself turns sour and the sulking and wallowing continues.
See, the problem is that one's whole world view gets distorted, so there really is no fencing away of these thoughts since they pervade one's entire persona and affect towards anything not including one's self. I haven't read a term for it in CBT; but, I'd call it deflecting and/or a profound dissociation from the problems of the world. This is my problem, not yours; but, in my hasty over-generalization about the world, I have thrown out whatever good is in the world just so that I can justify my shit attitude about it.
Now, a lot of grandiosity arises because of this attitude. One sees one's self as above the problems and drama of the world. To some degree that's a good attitude, why should I care about the starving child in Africa or the gassed child in Syria due to Putin's supply of chemical warfare agents to the Assad regime? I mean, I would be a nervous wreak if I cared about all these things, right?
Absolutely, positively. This is how I learned to be a human being.
I like this. I think I'll try it. If nothing else, it'll give me something to do when there's noting good on TPF. A verse I like from Tao Te Ching:
If you want to shrink something,
you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something,
you must first allow it to flourish.
If you want to take something,
you must first allow it to be given.
This is called the subtle perception
of the way things are.
The two best feelings in the world 1) When my children like each other. See each other. and 2) When my children are fearless in going after what they want. I'll add another 3) When my children are stronger and better than I am.
I mean, depression has to feed on itself, otherwise it would not be nearly as widespread a phenomena as it currently is.
Yes, I'm aware of social constructs as described by Marxist psychologists; but, I'm interested in depression as viewed as an individual derived phenomena.
I apologize for my brief response as my kids are both home, which is rare :wink: but what I quoted above would appear to be a flaw in logic, imho you almost nailed it but it is upside down in a big way.
My feeling is: "That's okay, that is THEIR problem, NOT mine." It serves me because the only fair expectations I can impose are those I impose on my self. To place an expectation on someone else isn't fair nor is rarely successful. Instead, I try to not set expectations of others and I am often gently surprised and rarely disappointed. If I find myself being resentful, I have to go back and see where it was that I set up an expectation for them and try to remind myself not to fall so easily in expecting something from another.
Something to think about that often gives me strength to recalibrate my perspective is to ask myself:
Do the people around me celebrate me or tolerate me?
Blunt question, blunt answer so it is a good thing that I am asking that of myself. And if the answer is tolerating me? Show me the door please and I am taking my shit with me.
With a closing comment of sincerity "I wish you all the Karma life has to share with you."
Smile and move on.
I'd describe it abstractly as a release from pain, but through death, making it sad, like a funeral song. Under that reading, the sun rising backwards is an apocolyptic reference that arises from injustice, with redemption only through death. That also fits with the gospel like tone of the song -all biblical allusions.
Many interpretations I suppose, but that's what sets Dylan apart from us mere mortals.
R.D. Laing. Knots. Find your favourite here
https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/
Because it's quite interesting.
Great. Thanks. Well worth the read. Considering I've been reading through Jared Diamond's work and David Graeber's it's an excellent summary of their interfaces and disagreements.
Personally, I have found mindfulness/meditation/contemplation very helpful when I was depressed/anxious. It is the only way that I have found that truly addresses the problem at its roots, and gets through all the garbage and nonsense the fastest.
All illnesses of the mind are... of the mind. Therefore anything that takes you out of the mind, takes you out of the condition of illness. It is the mind itself that produces the illness. This was a very important point for me to understand, that one could not overcome the condition from within the condition itself - one must leap out of it. There is no "step-by-step" procedure that can be followed - the cure cannot be "step-by-step", but must rather be a leap, a sudden jump to a different level.
Of course, depression feeds on itself - it is in the nature of the mind to go on and on and on - and never finish.
Quoting Posty McPostface
There is no escape from within this game. You must rather refuse to play the game, and strive to gain cognitive distance from it. Not disputation - disputation merely continues to feed it with energy. Everytime you follow your depressive and ruminative thoughts, you give them strength, you feed them. And everytime you anchor your awareness in something else, whether that is the breath, or a prayer word, etc. you take power away from them.
You have to realise that there are no steps that can be taken to escape from depression - it is a closed circle, always inevitably looping back on itself. The only way out is not through any horizontal interaction with it from within - but vertically, a leap out of it. It is much like seeing a vase as yellow, and then suddenly seeing it as red. That is the sort of change you're looking for. It's not a change in the facts, it's a change in your perception - and it can only be sudden.
And think about it for a moment. You should not waste your time solving particular problems that the mind throws at you. That people are mean, selfish, etc. and that's why you are depressed - that's a particular problem. Even if you solve it, the underlying pattern of your mind, which is diseased, will throw at you another particular problem. These particular problems are merely instances of an underlying diseased process. Mindfulness will enable you to see particular thoughts as manifestations of deeper habits & subtle patterns of thought. And then you will see how those thoughts & patterns are the result of your conditioning. And once you see that, then you are already beyond your conditioning - you have established a vantage point that can look at it from outside of it.
This was a good book for me: https://www.amazon.com/Wherever-You-There-Are-Mindfulness/dp/1401307787
Maybe you'll also find it helpful.
I have my qualms with CBT as it is professed nowadays. There's a cognitive distortion that is very insidious and doesn't get addressed as much as it should, and is in need of treatment by another rather than doing it all by yourself. In fact this cognitive distortion is the manifestation of a deeper problem and, in my opinion, can't be taught all by yourself, which is the liberating aspect of CBT. What cognitive distortion you may ask? Well, it's mental filtering. It's already manifest or is the culmination of all other cognitive distortions, and pervades one's thoughts and personality.
How do you treat it? By mindfulness meditation or by a radical shift in perceiving one's self in relation to the world. This is where therapy is needed at least at the first stage of treating neurosis/depression/anxiety. But, instead many people choose not to engage in therapy, thinking issues can be thought away in some mechanistic manner.
"First thing I remember was asking papa, why
For there were many things I didn't know
And daddy always smiled and took me by the hand
Saying, someday you'll understand
Well, I'm here to tell you now, each and every mother's son
That you better learn it fast, you better learn it young
'Cause someday never comes"
https://youtu.be/p9TNXFurt5w
So I changed one kitten into a dragon, who burned down the shed. All the kittens and the two kids had to run for their lives. The first knight that showed up got toasted by the dragon's fiery breath. Then Knight Vesper showed up. She dodged the dragon's breath, rolled on the side and hit it with her magic sword. The dragon got turned back into a kitten and they hugged happily ever after. The End.
Knight Vesper is a girl? :confused:
"Now she's walking through the clouds
With a circus mind
That's running wild
Butterflies and zebras
Moonbeams and fairytales
All she ever thinks about is riding with the wind"
Well, yeah. "Vesper" isn't much of a boy's name.
Okay....but what about the "Knight" part? Is there such a thing as a female Knight? I am thinking maybe Benkei should stick to the script or let Mom read the story about how the Princess Vesper saves the day!
Dragons? That's fine. But female knights? Outrageous!
I remember falling for quite a few Knights and none of them were female. You are going to have to provide proof of one for me my friend~
Exactly! Michael, I am so glad I can always count on you to understand my firmly held beliefs. :up:
banging my head on the keyboard
Alright you got me!
Sometimes you really slay me! :rofl:
Is the next Benket a boy or girl?
Same birthday as my Dads....an Aries...
You can keep it a secret but I can tell you that if it isn't another girl, your story about Knight Vespa coming in to the save the day is gonna bite you in the arse!
Why? And it's Vesper, like the star not a scootmobile. :lol:
It's a boy. So you'll need to have a story where Knight Vesper saves Prince Michael from an army of dragons.
:rofl: Sorry, Vesper. :lol:
If you have a boy and you are reading him the story the way it is written, your daughter will be quick to correct you as to how the story goes because the improvised stories are the ones kids love and remember.
And then you are going to have to explain to your son how you changed the gender of the hero to fit the story for his sister and .....here is the quandary: who is the real hero Dad? The man or the woman?
I think so too. :wink:
American English or England English?
Changed the gender? What was the original story?
:lol: The original story was about KITTENS! :rofl:
He will have to change the gender to a male if it is a boy because you want to empower the gender of the child you are reading to, especially if it is a made up story.
No?
You said "you are going to have to explain to your son how you changed the gender of the hero to fit the story for his sister". I'm trying to point out that he didn't change the gender of the hero because there was no original story of a male knight killing a dragon. The original story was just about kittens.
I think I have told you this before but I really need a pocket size version of you to carry in my back pocket. Maybe you could create a "Michael" app that could do the same thing? Logic and critical thinking are my weak points but laughter and love are my strong points. So a critical thinking and logic app would be amazing!
Eh, it's not very original. A dragon-slaying knight is far more innovative.
The Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse.
I sell bridges. Want to buy one?
It is hard to quantify unless my better half asks and then I can come up with a HUGE list of my responsibilities that make up what I do for a living.
I guess I would have to say "Loving and laughter" is what I do for a living. :love: :lol:
What? :roll: Someone has to! :up:
It is an awesome place in life~
It may be a bit biased in favor of Graeber's view, though (I had inserted an emoji here and the interface deleted the rest of my message)
Thanks to enlightened for this. This piece was very provocative and enlightening. The central idea meshes with some of the core themes in Sterelny's The Evolved Apprentice, which I am currently reading at a rather slow pace.
I think Graeber's view is more likely to be correct, though. In terms of discursive strategy, Graeber's view is a pointing out the limitations of a commonplace one. Namely that we have this logical-historical progression from hunter gatherers to agriculture and only after the advent of agriculture do we end up with complicated societal systems. Those systems are usually given the connotation of suffering from inequality (in some vague sense different from the current one) or consisting of dominance hierarchies (which has unsubstantiated animalistic overtones).
Graeber's rhetorical moves serve to declutter the conceptual landscape.
(1) complicated social hierarchies can occur without agriculture
(2) agriculture can occur without complicated social hierarchies
(3) social hierarchies can be present in highly egalitarian distributions of resources
(4) highly egalitarian (or unequal) distributions of resources can occur without complex hierarchical social systems
In general this is furnished with finding evidence where available and simultaneously showing that there is little evidence for the criticised view. Refutations like that are generally very strong.
Indeed. I had just finished reading this piece a couple hours ago, and you just provided what seems to me a very nice and accurate summary of his (or their, since David Wengrow is a co-author) arguments and conclusions.
test
No, I meant in a thread. See, I just tried to refer to you above. It didn't work out as I wished. I used to know how to do that, but now I forgot.
Awesome! Thanks!
Oh, hey, it works for me as well. Noobles, :hearts:
:sparkle:
Also, if you do B&T from scratch, I guarantee that you will get so stuck in exegesis and trying to figure points out you almost certainly wont make it past the first division.
I did not wish to derail the "WTF is Gender" thread but I have to say I never thought of men sitting that way for that reason. Frankly, I just thought you males did simply because you could.
You got it and set it free. Maybe that is how life is supposed to be?
I am beginning to wonder if that isn't the real lesson in life. Loving enough to let go.
Maybe you and @Hanover can write a guide for women?
Maybe so but every "Happy" place on Earth are NOT in America (except for Disney).
Danes have a 'happier' existence, as do the Dutch and the English and and and...oh look a message in a bottle from New Zealand...they too are Happier.
I do understand being busy with spouse and family!
If Hanover is willing to share a few more plays from the "Male Playbook of Life" and you explain some of the mechanics, we ladies might begin to learn how to [s]manip[/s]understand you guys. :grin:
I think I need another cup of coffee first :wink:
"I was down at the New Amsterdam staring at this yellow-haired girl
Mr. Jones strikes up a conversation with this black-haired flamenco dancer
She dances while his father plays guitar
She's suddenly beautiful
We all want something beautiful
I wish I was beautiful..."
This is the coolest thing.
Yeah baby!!! This idea really does have some credence since many addicts are more afraid of sobriety than death itself.
Many, many people including the President have called Officer Peterson a coward. Maybe I am too empathetic, maybe I don't wish to label another, maybe I can understand how no one, no one can know how they are going to behave when an actual crisis unfolds in front of you.
But just the slightest suggestion of the officer being anything less than a coward seems to not sit well with people. Can anyone understand where I am coming from?
I didn't as much set it free as much as it set itself free.
Are the Dylan allusions intentional or just curious accidents?
It's not Ballad of a Thin Man, but something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?
Actually most women I know keep their feet behind their ears while traveling by bus (but not by train for some reason) in order to keep themselves properly aired .. While not ladylike, it is hygienic and recommended. Men, on the other hand, should keep their legs crossed tightly in order to keep their testicles from bouncing uncontrollably as the bus finds its way through the city.
As it turns out then, most do it entirely backwards, except for the women I know, who are doing it just right.
What about the Nazi fortress on the dark side?
On a related note - Capricorn One, one of my favorite movies, is on Netflix now. It's about a conspiracy to fake a Mars landing.
Not intentional at all. In fact, this last song I was listening to was "Mr. Jones and Me" by The Black Crows I didn't know that either song was Dylan's.
Take a listen and see if it feels the same...
@Michael might know of a way but the only way I can think of is to do screen shots. :meh:
What?
He found out he was fired because of the tweet, too.
Yeah, let's see what Pompeo does. I am not that hot on anyone from within the Trump administration doing anything about Russia. It's a closed case for Trump. Mueller on the other hand, I can't wait to see what he has to say about all this.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/13/spy-poisoning-why-putin-may-have-engineered-gruesome-calling-card?CMP=fb_gu
Since you seem to know Bob Dylan songs and you are the second person who I have met that knows his work so well, suggest for me 3 of your favorite songs.
Oh an ironically, he introduced me to the Grateful Dead starting with the song Ripple. Pretty cool :cool:
Spare me. :razz:
She was married when we first met
Soon to be divorced
I helped her out of a jam I guess
But I used a little too much force
LOL - don't be naive man, I doubt Mueller will do anything to Trump. It's hard for the person who controls those who create the laws and uphold the Constitution to ever really get in trouble (unless, of course, his own Party turns against him).
It'll need a majority in the House and 67 senators. I think the Democrats have a chance of taking the House in November. Even if we assume that the Senate remains unchanged, it will only require 8 Republican senators to vote against him, which I think is likely if Mueller concludes that there were crimes committed. According to this there are 14 Republicans who as of August last year have issues with Trump, and Mueller finding against Trump would probably convince them to convict him if impeached.
I know how power works. I also know how self-interest works. If there's a significant amount of anti-Trump sentiment (among Republican and swing voters) then the Senators are likely to convict Trump so as not to risk their chance at re-election, especially if much of the Democrat wins in traditional Republican territory (e.g. Doug Jones, potentially Conor Lamb) is down to backlash against Trump.
If the Republicans convict Trump, they will lose the Presidency - they will never do that.
No they won't. Pence will take over.
Yes, but he will not win the next upcoming election as easily. Pence would be good after Trump finished with both mandates.
If Mueller finds that Trump committed crimes I doubt Trump would win the next election, or if the RNC would even select him as their candidate.
What a flirt. We all know what you really want.
Of course he would get relected - people don't care. He will say it's fake, the doing of the Deep State which has infiltrated and taken over America's institutions, which is what has ruined America. He will say that the accusations are all made up lies, and it's the system fighting back to prevent power from returning to the American people. So he will bring America back, stronger than ever before, and purge the institutions of this insidious organisation that has usurped the Constitution and taken the power back from the people.
He is the President of the United States - you know, you cannot have the police go into the White House and take him if he refuses to leave.
Plenty of people do care. His approval rating is 39%. His approval among Republicans is 87%. He lost the popular vote last time by ~3,000,000 votes. If Mueller finds that Trump committed crimes his support will drop further, most Republicans will likely vote for someone else in the primaries, and even if he does manage to become the candidate the swing states that he won last time are likely to swing the other way, if for no other reason than Democratic turnout will be much higher as they'll be incentivised to vote when they didn't before.
He wouldn't be the President if somebody else wins the election, or if he's convicted by the Senate after an impeachment.
And, yes, you could have the police go into the White House.
Those are not representative numbers. I do not believe in polling. His support is closer to 50%.
Quoting Michael
In theory - in practice, it would be a constitutional crisis.
Yeah because of states like California which is full of progressives - if they have more population, should they be given greater weight, even though they cover a disproportionately small area of the US geographically? I don't think so.
How have you come to your figure? And why is your method more reliable than Gallup's?
Because I said so, and I'm a genius, that's why :cool: Satisfied? :razz:
Feels before reals, eh?
See there is that sniveling again. :razz:
I would never take away your right to snivel or whine but I will ask you to do a lick of work before you exercise that right! These animals need feeding and 10 bales of hay, that weigh 135 pounds each, tossed off the trailer you are standing on, as you bump along the pasture with a herd of hangry animals following might be worth sniveling about by the end of day 3, in 115* heat. :fire:
How about those screen shots? A bitch of a chore aren't they? :lol:
What is the name of the song?
Dylan must have spoken to males more than females or my parents raising me on Neil Diamond has forever jaded me. I have a feeling I know more Dylan songs than I realize but I couldn't name one if you asked me. Isn't Dylan the Man in Black?
I thought you had said something about papers to write. :clap:
See how we find time to be here? :smile:
How on Earth do you know all this about another countries political system? :chin:
I have a feeling all that information is available on the internets, Tiff. :razz:
"If the the sun refused to shine
Would you still be lovin me?
If the mountains crumble to the sea
Would there still be you and me?"
But why bother learning it if it is not your country? (Hmmm that seems like a lame reason not to) But I have a hard enough time keeping our system straight, I cannot imagine knowing how another countries systems work too
It's more interesting than what's going on here in the UK. Theresa May is such a bore.
Ireland is even more boring. No idea what's going on there. I believe we are still a republic though. Probably.
I know that the Good Friday agreement is causing all such of issues with Brexit.
Somehow the UK and the EU need to ensure that there's no border between ROI and NI, no border between NI and the rest of the UK, but a border between UK and ROI (given that the Government refuses to allow freedom of movement). Seems impossible to me.
Facetiousness aside, yes. The UK is just going to have to back down and stay in the customs union (at least in all but name). Otherwise, it will get no deal and crash out of the EU. Simple as that.
Which then will break the Good Friday agreement.
And I think the politics of that is far worse than reversing Brexit (or at least staying a member of the single market and so allowing freedom of movement).
A hard or no deal Brexit just seems like the worst decision, both economically and politically.
The common sense solution is to have a soft Brexit. And I think that's what everyone with any sense wants. But May is beholden to the right wing of her party as well as to the DUP and is essentially trapped. I think what she is doing now is talking the talk of a hard Brexit to please the euroskeptics while desperately hoping for an opportunity to slip a soft one past them.
Feels are also reals - it's your mistake to cut down your existence to merely what can be discursively articulated. There are a lot of things that I know, that I cannot articulate discursively how or why I know. For example, it's very often in my life that I have predicted upsets in elections. Also the results of important games in sporting competitions, mainly football/soccer (I used to bet, and I made quite a bit of money at it). I cannot say in a rationally justified way how I do it.
But I can describe it. It's like I see someone speak, like Trump, and I watch his energy, and the energy in the crowd. And I really sort of become one with it and feel it on a deeper level. And it's that enthusiasm that tells me whether someone has tapped into something essential in our collective consciousness or not.
When I watch, say, a White Nationalist or Nazi rally (like the Charlottesville one) I know that those people are a fringe group and they will not succeed. The energy is lacking. They may all be committed, but it is a superficial thing, it cannot succeed. I cannot articulate exactly why in words. But I just perceive that they are irrelevant in the bigger picture.
Other examples - when I was in University and I ran for student union positions. When I gave a speech, and I watched the other candidates give a speech - I already knew who would win, based on the reaction of the crowd. Those times when the crowd was enthusiastic and clapping more whenever I spoke - those times I always won. Other times, try as I may, I simply could not swing the crowd in my favour. And I knew I would lose, and I did lose those times.
Or think about when a girl falls in love with you. Take my first girlfriend for instance - I knew she loved me even before I started going out with her. As Trump would say, probably if I were to shoot someone in the middle of the street, she would still have loved me just as much. And you can see that, it was absolutely real and undeniable. Regardless of what I said or did, it didn't matter.
A politician does a similar thing. Skilled politicians capture the heart of a nation. Trump captured it. So did Obama in his first term. You knew they would win, just by watching the enthusiasm of their supporters and feeling it. Look at Hitler, who was one of the most skilled politicians at doing this. He captured the heart of Germany at the time, and regardless of what he did, Germans followed him! Even to their own destruction, they followed. Why did they follow?
There are not many politicians who were capable to do something like this: Trump, Obama, Hitler, Gandhi are some recent examples that come to mind.
And these are subtle matters. It is not something you can bring about. It is much like sailing. The skilled sailor cannot control whether or not there is wind, and what wind there is. But the skilled sailor is capable to use the wind when it is present - to capture and use the tremendous energy of the wind. It is much like that in these matters - there is nothing that Trump or anyone can do to bring about the favourable winds that they run on. But Trump has definitely harnessed tremendous energy, which he is still using.
Your feelings are real feelings, but what you feel Trump's support to be isn't what Trump's support really is.
Gallup's method of determining his support is more reliable and more trustworthy than your gut instinct, or whatever it is that has led you to your conclusion.
Why? I bet Gallup was wrong far more than I was.
Because you're pulling a number out of your ass, whereas Gallup use proper statistical analysis.
No, I'm not pulling it out of my bum :razz: - I do have a way to decipher it, but I cannot discursively articulate how I reach the answer. Does my inability to discursively (or scientifically if you want) articulate how I reach an answer automatically make my answer wrong, and Gallup's answer right, simply because they have a methodology that can be discursively articulated & replicated?
Have you proven that discursively articulated methodologies are superior to other methodologies in determining election outcomes?
Oh, that's handy. Well, I think Trump's real support is less than 35%. And I have no way to scientifically verify that either, but blah blah gut feelings etc. So, my method is as good as yours and therefore we're both right??
Quoting Agustino
Lol, you probably just got this number from Trump's tweet, or more directly, the Rasmussen Report poll, which isn't regarded as a high quality polling report. FiveThirtyEight aggregates polls and assigns them different weights to account for poll quality (e.g. partisanship, sample size, recency, etc.) and currently has Trump's approval rating at 40.5%
Nope. He just feels that it's 50%. He thinks he's Nostradamus:
[quote=Agustino]For example, it's very often in my life that I have predicted upsets in elections. Also the results of important games in sporting competitions, mainly football/soccer (I used to bet, and I made quite a bit of money at it). I cannot say in a rationally justified way how I do it.[/quote]
There's really no way to argue with someone who refuses any empirical evidence that contradicts their "instinct". It's a wasted effort.
Tangled Up in Blue.
Yeah, Bob Dylan is Johnny Cash. Good Lord. Here's Johnny when he was really old singing the Nine Inch Nails song "I Hurt Myself Today" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt1Pwfnh5pc
Speaking of Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor, here's that song you keep talking about that they sing: "I Want to Fuck You Like an Animal. (Closer)" Enjoy.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vSAOrpKlgY
I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is to see you
Describe your method as best as possible (as I did). And what's your track record?
The methodology cannot be fully disclosed discursively. You cannot judge if it's better or worse than mine as easily as you wish. That's not an indictment of it. You can say that you don't trust it since you don't understand it. That's fair enough. I certainly don't trust yours because (1) I don't understand it, and (2) I see you don't have much of a track record. You have to say a lot more about that, than merely say that it cannot be discursively disclosed, and therefore it is wrong. That's not why it is wrong, if it is.
Quoting Michael
My track record isn't empirical evidence? Oh really... :rofl: Look at the empirical evidence of the failing Gallup polls, which fail to predict election results. That's what you should be looking at. But you ignore that evidence, because they have a methodology that can be discursively articulated and replicated :lol:
This is called scientism.
I have not seen that tweet.
No, he wasn't "mathematically eliminated" by any poll I know of. He was just given a lower chance of winning. And in the end, the polls were off by one or two percent. So, if you understood the science behind polling, you'd understand they have to be wrong sometimes because they're just statistical tools and are not supposed to be able to call the winner 100% correctly all the time - especially in close contests (and they normally declare their margin of errors in advance). Putting "no" trust in them just leaves you at a disadavantage. It would make more sense to put a qualified trust in them on the basis that they are useful indicators of opinion with obvious potential flaws.
Well, since Hillary lost, I read sheep intestines. Because, obviously if the polls were wrong once, they must be wrong all the time. So, screw science, back to the tried and true.
I predicted Pennsylvania would go to Trump in the days before the election when he was down like 4 to 6 points and it wasn't really considered in play. It wasn't that I pulled that prediction out of my ass, but it was more that I realized it was a rust belt state that had been hammered by the loss of manufacturing jobs and they had lost hope in the Democrats who were supposed to be pro-union and would save them. White working class people had moved to Trump with his protect American jobs platform.
Hanover -1, Gallup - 0.
See Cash's song makes me want to gouge my eyes out! :shade:
Okay I am giving Dylan a listen on a song I know as the Dead's.
Is this a good version of him live? I might just have to open the Dylan CD my friend sent me over a decade ago.
I sense a very slow SRV on some of his riffs
Hillary was hated. Trump was hated. I'd probably have gone with a "better the devil you know" just going by their personality if I could've voted. In the end I'd have voted against the Republican party but I would never have voted for Hillary because of Hillary.
Not once. Crooked, Brexit, and other local elections that you wouldn't know about.
So, you guessed right on a close to 50/50 chance. So what? You really think that has any significance at all for anything?
You have given a joke of an 'explanation'. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to put in more effort. If anyone compares this crap with the explanation I gave, there is no comparison.
Quote your explanation.
Why not listen to some of us here? I hoped and voted for Trump as did some others here. I predicted he would win because he had hustle and hustle is a good tool for a President. Just ask the King Of Hustle, President Obama.
Because no-one here is providing a method more consistently reliable than polling to listen to. You can have a bad method or no method and still be right sometimes on something as close as a presidential election.
Did you predict Conor Lamb would lose then?
Oh, oh I know this one!
I Want to Fuck You Like an Animal!
Here:
Quoting Agustino
Listening is a really good method and often under valued. Many of those around me confided in me that they were voting for Trump once they knew I was supporting him.
That's not a method, it's a love song to Trump and totally irrelevant. Don't you realize that Trump would have lost if it were not for an unlucky break re: Comey? And in the end he did lose the popular vote and won the election by a few thousand votes in states like Pennsylvania. So, he won due to the quirks of the system and an unlucky break for Clinton. And you were right purely by chance.
Actually, I predicted that it would be really close and not yet formally decided until today and that it would result in a recount that would favor the Democrat. I also predicted that you would ask me about it in response to my post about Trump winning Pennsylvania. All of these predictions were made during the Carter administration, before many of the players in these predictions were ever born. I embarrassingly predicted it would rain today though, although it is still morning and anything can happen.
No Baden, Trump won because the engine of America was running on fumes and we were about to say 'fuck it'. And when I say "we" I mean the small businesses of America.
No, if that were the case, most Americans would have voted for him, but they didn't, they voted for Clinton.
Sure, and my team would have won so many more games if the ball wouldn't have hit the goal post and bounced out.
Lol. I'm not cheering for any side but...Never mind, that's funny. :100:
:roll: Maybe Michael would be generous enough to explain how it is if Hillary won that Trump was named President. I know you know how Hillary lost, I just wonder why you keep denying it.
The electoral college. More Americans voted for Clinton than Trump. You know that, right?
Yep. I know that. And you know that being President is not based on a popularity contest.
"When Scott Kelly returned to Earth after a 340-day voyage aboard the International Space Station (ISS) two years ago, he was 2 inches taller than he'd been when he left. His body mass had decreased, his gut bacteria were completely different, and — according to preliminary findings from NASA researchers — his genetic code had changed significantly. ... While most of these genetic changes reverted to normal following Scott Kelly's return to Earth, about 7 percent of the astronaut's genetic code remained altered — and it may stay that way permanently."
*happy squeaks*
That's my point, Trump was less popular and less desired by Americans, so all this stuff about America wanting him is wrong. They didn't.
(Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2%: 48.2% to 46%).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results
This highlights the pure silliness of @Agustino claims; as if he predicted Trump was so loved he would lose by two percent and then accidentally win the electoral college.
Hillary won the popular vote, Trump won the electoral college vote. The President is chosen by electoral college vote.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Clinton had nearly 3 million more votes than Trump tho.
Using the "energy of a crowd" as criteria for election prediction is just exercising biased perception. What You See Is All There Is. Of course those who attend a Trump rally are going to vote for Trump. No doubt that there are smaller, third party political rallies which fire up attendants too. It says nothing about the millions and millions and millions of Americans who don't attend the events, indeed, because Clinton won the popular vote.
Why is it not a method?
Quoting Baden
No.
Quoting Baden
Popular vote is irrelevant. States like California have way too many people, it's not fair that they decide equally for the rest of America's geographic area.
Quoting Baden
Yeah, and the other 10-20 times I was right (not just about elections) was also "purely by chance". Why am I so lucky?
Quoting Baden
That's what your scientism is.
Quoting Baden
Trump is loved by a majority of Americans. As I said, around 50%. Not by everyone.
Quoting Maw
I agree. As I said though, it's not fair that if population is mostly concentrated in one area (say Cali) then they should be able to force other areas (MidWest for example) to do as they wish. Taking into account all geographical reasons is as important as taking into account the popular vote, if not more important than that. Hence the electoral college.
Quoting Maw
Yes, it could be. But I distinguish something like a Neo-Nazi rally, where people also show great excitement, and a Trump Rally. The two are qualitatively different in the energy they gather & manifest. I mentioned this in my first explanation. The energy alone is not sufficient (if you take that to be merely the energy of individual people qua individuals) - it could just be a fringe group. But Trump gathers a lot of supporters at once and generates that kind of energy across all regions of the US (maybe some exceptions with NYC, Cali, etc.).
In a popular vote each vote counts, and counts for 1. How is that not fair? What does the state the voter lives in have to do with it?
Quoting Agustino
How many times were you wrong?
Or a better question: in what percentage of cases did you guess right and the statistics professionals calculate wrong? And what's the sample size?
You're conflating what's fair and your imaginary ability to predict things. So, as I said, 538 were within 1.5% of the final tally and were right that Clinton would win the popular vote. You predicted Trump would get more votes than her, so you were wrong, (and your methodology which suggested Americans loved Trump more was obviously wrong too). You only turned out to be right about the final result by a quirk of the system.
In any case, there's an easy way to decide who is more accurate, you or the polls. The next time there's an election, whichever one you want, you make a percentage prediction and we'll compare it to a poll aggregator. Then we'll repeat the process a few times. If you are consistently more accurate, I'll accept that your method, whatever that is, is superior. Until then, all you are doing is making unsubstantiated claims concerning your abilities, which no intelligent person would take seriously.
Under a popular vote, geographical differences have no impact because it's based on the individual vote alone. It's the electoral college that assigns different weight to geographic population differences. How is it "fair" if three million votes were effectively nullified under the Electoral College?
Nearly 4 million Californians voted for Trump in 2016. That's more Trump votes than some Mid-Western states combined.
Sure, he does (or did), and yet he nevertheless lost the popular vote. It doesn't follow that you believed you could "predict" Trump's victory, based on the "energy of the crowds" and tapping into a nationwide "collective consciousness", and yet he failed to capture the majority of votes. If Clinton won the popular vote, the majority of US voters, it follows more strongly that she "gathers a lot of supporters" and "captured energy across all regions of the US".
Isn't that exactly what I was telling you?
Quoting Maw
Precisely because, if, say, 90% of the population of the US were in California, it would not be right for California to decide for all other regions - the citizens of California do not understand the problems that the other geographical regions are dealing with (some of them geography-specific problems). So they are not representative of the collective as a whole, even if they are the majority numerically. I actually think that having a geographic representation is MORE important than having a numerical majority. A numerical majority tends to lead to problems of asymmetrical development, where the regions which are numerically a minority, but geographically a majority will be left underdeveloped. That is what's happening now. Large cities in the UK for example - London, Manchester, Birmingham, etc. are sucking all the resources (including population), leaving the surrounding communities underdeveloped in comparison to them.
So it's fair for 10% of the population to have an equal (or otherwise disproportionate) say to the other 90%, simply because they live in a less populated region?
That's ridiculous.
Not necessarily equal, but yes.
Quoting Michael
Nope, it's right. They have to decide for the country as a whole - the country isn't just one state, especially when you're dealing with a country as large and as varied as the US - regardless of what population that state has.
In fact, I even told you why it's right, but again, you keep spewing emotionally driven BS, as if what you said is the truth merely by virtue of coming from your keyboard.
Quoting Agustino
What's so special about one's residence that it should determine the weight of one's vote?
Maybe I should say that it's unfair that the white majority have more of a say than the black minority; that white people don't understand the problems that black people face; and so therefore that black people should have a disproportionate share of the vote.
Yes, @Michael, is a bit of a wild one. No matter how many times we suggest he use logic and reason in his arguments, he just can't keep his gut feelings and emotions out of things. What are we to do?
Precisely because, if, say, 75% of the population of the US are Christian, it would not be right for Christians to decide for all other faiths - Christians do not understand the problems that other faiths are dealing with (some of them faith-based ethical problems, e.g. same-sex marriage and abortion). So they are not representative of the collective as a whole, even if they are the majority numerically.
The country isn't just one religion, or race, or gender, or age. So let's let the minorities have a disproportionate say!
*facepalm* - one's geographic area has its own ways of life, its own means of economic sustenance, etc. Are you telling me the average Cali fella working for, say, Facebook understands the problems, issues and way of life of, say, a farmer from the Midwest? Do you think someone from Cali understands the crime problems that the Midwest is facing? The economic problems? etc. That he can decide for the farmer in the Midwest just because there are more like him?!
Quoting Michael
Those differences are minor in comparison to the differences that result from geography.
I'm a well-known histrionic. :roll:
This is calculated for (although you may be right that it wasn't calculated for enough in the last presidential election or others you've experienced). That's really a minor point, anyway, and not a reason to dismiss polls or their predictive power— necessarily limited as it is. The fact is that the margin of error of most polls is about 2-3%, and the majority of polls come in within those bounds when measured against the results they set out to predict. In a close race where the winner is within the margin of error, the poll can be both wrong in its prediction yet scientifically accurate/reliable. So, the bellwether of poll reliability is not whether a given poll is "right" in the narrow sense of whether or not it gets the winner right, but whether or not it does what it says it would do, which is to predict a result within a given margin of error. Most do reasonably well at that. And poll aggregators, which score polls for their performance and weight their results (as does 538), further reduce error. So while some individual polls may turn out to be unreliable, polling as a science is not, generally speaking, and it's obviously more reliable than guesses based on "feelings". That's the boring reality. But people who don't understand this like to talk about how their gut instinct beat the polls, an attitude which expresses little apart from an ignorance about how polls work and an irrational confidence in their personal predictive powers (probably combined with some anti-science/establishment orientation). An analogy would be someone going to Vegas, winning at roulette, and then imagining he can continue to beat the casino indefinitely. He'll eventually lose his shirt. And in a competition with pollsters who have access to huge amounts of data, the man on the street who thinks he has some special insight into human nature the rest of us lack will, given a large enough sample of results, inevitably come out the loser too.
This is bologna. This whole discussion is bologna. I don't like President Trump. I think he's a terrible president. But... he was elected in accordance with the US's electoral system. The popular vote is irrelevant to the question. It's electoral votes that matter. Maybe we should have a different system, but we don't. It's not unfair, it's the way things are done here.
As for "not supported by three quarters of the country...." Bologna too. ~59% of eligible voters voted. ~65% of registered voters. Would it be nice if it were higher, sure. Again, that's not the way it works. In 2008 a lot of people said Obama was not their president. Now a lot of people say Trump is not their president. They're all wrong. This is what we get. This is what we've got. Suck it up.
There were 250,000,000 eligible voters. 66,000,000 voted for Clinton. That's 26.4%. Buxtebuddha is pretty spot on with saying that Clinton wasn't supported by three quarters of the country.
This is significant because they concede the premise that the polls results were wrong, as opposed to you, who claim the polls were right, [s]but the drooling public can't understand what it means to be wrong[/s]. What I can say is that even if you were right, [s]and you're not[/s], that the polls got it right, but the public misunderstood, is that the press most certainly looked upon the polls as proof of who was going to win and they presented that narrative. That is, they didn't say that Clinton was up 4 points but that means it's dead even because of the standard of error. They said Clinton is winning and will win and it's a done deal.
[s]The reason the press did as the did is because they wanted to reassure themselves and their constituents and puppy dog followers that the good guy (or woman as the case may be) was destined for victory.[/s]
[s]You, in your attempt to feign neutrality, defend neither party expressly, but instead apparently just wish to protect the dignity of the science of statistics, fearful that it will fall into disfavor like other already sullied supposedly neutral institutions like the press, the courts, and climatology science.[/s]
The way I delete the belligerent parts of my posts is by using the cross out method, offering me a way to sort of spout off but pretend it's not there.
OK, but what exactly do you disagree with in what I wrote? I was pretty specific and qualified in what I was saying about polling. [s]Plus, it took me at least 15 damn minutes to write. And you give me this BS in return??[/s]
What was that word again? Oh, yeah - bologna. Let's see, that means 100% of US citizens who were less than 18 years old in 2016 did not support Trump. That's a pretty amazing statistic!!! 100%!!! It's not fair!!!
Google gives close to 15,000 results, so it's out there.
[s]Just that I do think the polls have shown themselves increasingly unreliable recently, and it's not all explainable in terms of a misunderstanding of the concept of margin of error.[/s] Stop trying to get in my pants..
And there was me thinking you were a convert to the Agustino method for getting things wrong and then claiming credit for being a genius. Close call...
I didn't predict that Trump will get more votes than Clinton. I predicted that Trump will win, fully aware that in actual fact Trump will probably have gotten fewer votes than Clinton, granted that states like California which have very high populations were Crooked landslides and Trump had effectively no chance there.
Quoting Baden
Oh well, that you disapprove of my method isn't that troubling to me. What is more troubling is the scientistic emphasis you have, that for something to work pragmatically and empirically, then it must be experimentally reproducible and methodologically shareable.
@Michael, I did take into account how often I was wrong, and it was a few times, but for certain I've been right more often than wrong. And even when I was wrong, I wasn't super far off wrong - I remember one time I had made a bet before the start of CL that Juventus would win. Juventus had just come from 2 years of trouble. First year they were kicked out of Italy's Seria A so they battled it back very hungrily and qualified again for Seria A. Then they immediately (well not really immediately, one year after :P ) won Seria A and qualified for CL. They were up and coming, they had the momentum, they had kept most of their best players, and they were extremely hungry. I could see that in the energy the players put in the game, in the way their fans acted, and in the atmosphere of their games.That time, I made a bet that Juventus would win CL. I think the year was 2015 - at that time Juve hadn't been in the finals or come close to winning CL in 10+ years. They didn't win it this time either, but they did get to the finals (losing to Barcelona?). So yeah, I was wrong that time for example, but not too wrong - they were very close. It's rare that I ever find such opportunities though. Even in politics, it was a few times - Trump, Obama, Brexit and a few local elections. I certainly don't frequently identify such events.
OK, so now you're saying your prediction was that Clinton would get more votes than Trump (and Trump would just win by the electoral college), and your method for discovering that was in your own words:
"It's like I see someone speak, like Trump, and I watch his energy, and the energy in the crowd. And I really sort of become one with it and feel it on a deeper level. And it's that enthusiasm that tells me whether someone has tapped into something essential in our collective consciousness or not...
Skilled politicians capture the heart of a nation. Trump captured it. So did Obama in his first term. You knew they would win, just by watching the enthusiasm of their supporters and feeling it. Look at Hitler, who was one of the most skilled politicians at doing this. He captured the heart of Germany at the time, and regardless of what he did, Germans followed him! Even to their own destruction, they followed. Why did they follow?"
So, you thought Trump would lose the popular vote because...he was so popular.
Well, this is descending into farce rather quickly.
Is this the same "predictive power" that changes my text on my phone from "Fuck" to "Duck"?
Let me tell you how infuriating it can be to swear in a text only to have it come across as some cute, fluffy, yellow duck!
Tell me about it...damn. :fire:
No man - I said that I had taken into account how the US electoral system works when I made the prediction that Trump would win the election (regardless of popular vote).
Seeeeeeeeeee? Was that satisfying?
You dumb as fuck, brah.
Why? :lol: Are you AC Milan fan? :naughty:
Show me where you did that before the election. Quote yourself. Otherwise tell me what your predicted percentages were because if you want to compare yourself to a poll that's the only meaningful method, and the rest of what your saying is just nonsense based on your misunderstanding of how polls work and what they are supposed to do. Most polls allowed for the fact that Trump might win (and gave him a roughly 1 in 3 chance in the case of 538, for example, which isn't bad odds), so they were not in conflict with your prediction. Unlike you though, they also gave a statistical percentage spread, which was also accurate in the case of the poll aggregator I quoted. It's only the exact predicted percentage that was wrong (which is expected). What was your predicted percentage? And if you don't have one then can you just admit you have no case here.
You mean dumb as duck, brah!
Lol, my entire life is based on giving and receiving no ducks. I still feed them or quack back at them in the park.
LOL - CL wise Milan has better performance, but in Seria A Juve has easily dominated historically and even today :lol:
So you bet on the worst CL bottlers ever. You smart.
Haha you are so full of bullshit Agustino. I wonder if you actually believe the lies you are telling us.
I did not predict Trump would lose the popular vote (especially by a margin of 3m) - but I was fully aware it was possible. Any other content apart from insults, or you have nothing better in your tiny head?
OK, so your gut got it all wrong about Trump capturing the heart of the nation etc. What is your new reason for predicting the win then since that's now out the window.
Would you:
A) run as fast as you freakin could to get to help them in any way you can?
B) stand frozen and just watch what it happening?
C) understand why someone needs to yell to another to call 911 because not everyone knows how to react in a situation?
D) Walk away offering no help at all?
Depends on what you and they know about the medical situation, particularly with regard to CPR.
:vomit:
I agree but since Trump got less votes from the nation - "Trump captured the heart of the nation" deserves a :vomit: :vomit:
No, Baden. There are 4 choices: A,B,C or D.
See? At least you are doing something! :razz:
I did not make predictions in terms of percentage points. My prediction was a slight win for Trump in electoral college (which is the only thing that matter as regards the election).
Quoting Baden
Why must meaningful methods be simply those that can be quantified?! :s This is pure scientism and it's completely unjustified. You expect me to prostrate myself before quantifiable ways of solving problems. I disagree on principle.
Quoting Baden
No - "winning the heart of a nation" means energising the people, and the popularity that you amass. This is not quantified merely by numbers of people though that is important too. It's also about the underlying energy - Trump supporters had more energy than the Crooked ones, they had more drive.
Yes, and which one you pick depends on your knowledge and theirs. If they know CPR and you don't, you let them get on with it and vice versa.
Yes but how are you going to know if they need help?
A,B,C or D
No, because you were using it to predict who would win the vote. Each person has one vote. The intensity of energy of individuals is irrelevant in an election. The only thing that's relevant is how many votes each candidate gets (and where they get them in the case of the electoral college). So what if Trump supporters had more drive. They had one vote each. And the popularity Trump amassed was less than the popularity Clinton amassed because he lost the popular vote and she won it. Clearly, overall, the drive and popularity was more behind her.
No no no, you said Trump would "in actual fact"..."probably" get fewer votes than Clinton, and gave the example of California's population. That's not the same as stating it's a theoretical "possibility".
It is - high intensity people drag others with them to vote, some of which would not have voted otherwise.
You could ask them or watch to see if they are doing CPR. You could shout at them that you can do it and take over if you can. Doing something stupid in this scenario could cost a life so you use your intelligence to make a calculated decision.
Yeah, I thought it was probable, but I never made a prediction based on that. Either way, you can get your cocky feeling thinking that you're right and Agustino is wrong, I don't really care about ego games man. You're not interested to discuss the underlying issue - whether we should prostate ourselves before quantifiable methods of analysis all the time, or there are situations when 'intuitive' methods give better, faster and more reliable answers.
Graham Bell?
Yes, and Clinton's intensity was higher, she got more people to vote for her. Keep digging.
Okay so you are not giving an answer provided, Thanks for playin bro
:sad:
That doesn't mean her intensity was higher. She could barely stand on her two feet, give me a break. Trump had probably 5-6x (if not more) the rallies Crooked did.
Right, go on then big boy, hold me accountable :sweat:
Had democracy had its way, Sanders would be president today. No doubt in my mind about that.
Thank God in Heaven! So you would do something! Communication is an EXCELLENT answer! :up:
If only young people and students were to vote, sure :P
He won against Trump in almost every age group, poll. I still remember that despite my addled memory.
You are spot on about that. My youngest wanted Sanders and when we got Trump he is yearning for New Zealand, somewhere he has never been.
Yes, that's the problem. But yes, Sanders had gathered a lot of momentum too. He would definitely have had a much better chance than Clinton, and may have won. At the same time, he would have been an easier target for Trump, being a "socialist" and a "communist", which don't jive well with most older Americans.
Powerful lady full of grace and is very easy on the conservative eyes.
Buxte qualified his answer just like I did. I said "It depends". He said "unless". Those are both qualifying statements. He wouldn't do anything either unless certain conditions apply. What's your beef?
The thing is, as I commented about this in a CNN poll. Trump would have nothing on Sanders. In fact, nobody has anything "on" Sanders. He could have kept quiet (Sanders) and watch Trump dig himself in a hole. It would have been a test of character, as in many ways it was between Shillary and Trump, but Sanders would have won hands down.
My beef is that you never do nothing. You always communicate. It is the first part of CPR or if a dog fight broke out and your Mother In Law just stood and watched as your son and daughter in law could have used a bit of duckin help!
Oh fer the love of pete I give
The communism/socialism thing is BIG for most older Americans man. Many would not vote simply because they heard Sanders is socialist/communist. This isn't Europe or something, where communist/socialist is okay in some parts.
I didn't say I wouldn't do anything. Just the opposite. I said I would do the right thing by assessing the situation. You just misunderstood.
I failed Aristotle's Challenge on Anger okay? My stress came out sideways.
I am sorry, I hope you understand. :pray:
No worries. Didn't sound all that angry to me anyhow...
Thank you for your grace~ And for clarifying that you would do something~
Yeah, and so was Obama called and reviled as a socialist for bringing Obamacare. Yet, he won his second term without much effort. And, it's true that the Sanders would have to keep voter turnout among the young, high enough to get into office; but, if my memory serves me well, he had no issues with that, apart from the DNC squashing his chances.
That was just for his re-election. Presidents usually get re-elected once they have been once in office. Why do you reckon that happens? Does it have to do, by chance, with controlling the state apparatus?
But the first time he ran, there was some propaganda against him being a socialist/communist, but not very believable. For Sanders, it really would be believable, because in many regards it is true.
...that he would win less votes than her. Keep digging.
:lol: You have developed an obsession with winning votes. Winning the election isn't the same as winning votes - I predicted the result of the election, not the result of votings.
Here's what we were taught when we came across a situation like this. 1) Say "Has anyone called 911?" If not, call it 2) Then say "I know CPR, can I help?" Which letter is that? C I guess.
Yeah, you need to get that paranoia in check before it becomes a bigger issue in how you go about reasoning things.
Quoting Agustino
You don't get it. Sanders made it abundantly clear during the primaries, that he was a social democrat, even openly saying that he is 'socialist'. People didn't seem to really care much about that. The McCarthy days and the red scare are long gone, do you still keep them back in your mind?
On the basis that Trump was more popular, which he wasn't, and captured the heart of the nation, which he didn't. In other words, you guessed and were right by accident. What was your percentage prediction again? If you didn't have one, stop comparing yourself to polls. I just explained to you how they work by predicting a percentage spread and a probability of winning/losing.
:up:
It's just a pragmatic observation :P
Quoting Posty McPostface
Yes, that's exactly the problem, that he openly admitted to it. The students didn't care much, but in a 1-on-1 race with Trump that would have become a MAJOR issue.
Quoting Agustino
I'm not interested in this other silly bickering.
I don't think the issue is as serious as you claim. Democrats pretty much only win (or lose) based on young voter turnout. The old rednecks or conservatives might vote more often; but, their voice isn't that much of an issue when the young are moved to vote. That's pretty much how Republicans win elections, just based on poor young voter turnout.
Don't try to dodge, especially in such a cowardly way by pretending I don't want to discuss the issue. I do, which is why I asked you the fair questions: What was your percentage prediction? And did you have one or not?
Well, then that makes sense then. I lived in Poland for a while, and he does smell of the similar sentimental anti-communist Law and Justice party wrecking the country and constitution over there.
I derived my conclusion based off of empirical experience and readings (almost daily) of the bitter sentiment towards anything smelling of socialism or communism (although 'Russian' sounds like a better label of hatred festering in the hearts of many in Eastern Europe). Yet, I understand your point in being that those countries are highly socialist anyway (despite their past), like much of Europe for the matter.
1) If you predicted Trump would win the overall vote percentage wise by any margin then you were more wrong than the polls were (on average). Therefore, we can conclude your contention you were more accurate than the polls is false.
2) If you predicted Clinton would win the overall vote percentage wise, none of your so-called reasons for your prediction that Trump would then win the presidency make any sense as they are all based on overall popularity and other generalities, such as intensity, energy etc. Therefore, we can conclude your contention you were more accurate than the polls based on your given reasoning is false.
3) You didn't consider a percentage wise prediction. Therefore, we can conclude your comparing yourself to polls is meaningless as they are statistical tools that predict on the basis of probabilities and can only be judged numerically.
You certainly are a very strange man. I answered this exact question just awhile ago.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Baden
I didn't predict this.
Quoting Baden
I didn't predict this.
Quoting Baden
Sure, since when are only quantifiable methods of analysis valid? Since we subscribe to scientism? :nerd:
This is actually true Benkei :lol: It's the first truth I've seen you write in quite awhile about me.
Republicans tend to win based upon the failure of Democrats to reach out to old white guys, but instead convince themselves that that largest segment of the population can be overruled by cobbling together every minority.
Old (rich) white guys have no interest in anything limiting their welfare. After all America is a welfare state for the rich.
Sorry, I missed that reply because of the CPR thing. Emergencies first!
Randomly using the word "scientism" is not going to get you out of this. Anyhow, what you're saying now is you simply guessed Trump would win with no regard to percentages, but for the wrong reasons (you thought he was more electorally popular, but as it turned out he was less electorally popular as he lost the popular vote - maybe you just discovered this today). But as I told you more than once the scenario of Trump winning was given a 1/3 chance by the poll aggregator 538 and others (they even specifically gave a much higher than historically normal chance of Trump losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college and wrote numerous articles on that). So, your guess doesn't even contradict their predictive spread of possibilities. The only thing that differs is they weren't burdened by your false reasoning which should have led them to the conclusion that Trump would win the popular vote. That, even though it would have correctly predicted a Trump presidency, would have been a larger statistical mistake than the eventual predictive discrepancy in the polling. So, again, no matter how you paint it, you were more wrong than the polls in every way that matters statistically, and your reasoning for your prediction (unlike theirs) is incoherent, suggesting all you did was guess and were right by accident.
So, what are these non-scientific methods of predicting results you want to talk about and when can we test them out? I'm ready to go anytime.
Except that Trump won a huge amount of minority votes. Gimme a break.
Old white guys are the largest sector of the US population? Maybe in physical mass... :grin:
Certainly in amount of influence over the rest of the population.
From one week before the election:
"We’ve written about this before, but I wanted to call your attention to it again because the possibility of an Electoral College-popular vote split keeps widening in our forecast. While there’s an outside chance that such a split could benefit Clinton if she wins the exact set of states that form her “firewall,” it’s far more likely to benefit Donald Trump, according to our forecast. "
Oh, and that's exactly what happened...
So while all Agustino could give us was vague hearts and minds platitudes pointing in the wrong direction (a popular vote win for Trump) and no specifics on percentages, while accidentally, due to the quirks of the electoral college, getting the basic result right, smart people doing real intellectual work were making statistical and probabilistic predictions that turned out to be of actual use in understanding possible election day scenarios. That's not bad scientism, that's good science.
True that. Read: money.
As long as it's fair and balanced criticism, then we're fine.
More cool shit! Evidence that bioelectricity functions as a mechanism to control the growth of bodies. More reason to treat the organism as an integrated whole and put to bed the tired myth that genes dictate biological processes: "The extreme form of this view is “to explain everything by saying ‘it is in the genes,’ or DNA, and this trend has been reinforced by the increasingly powerful and affordable DNA sequencing technologies,” Huang said. “But we need to zoom out: Before molecular biology imposed our myopic tunnel vision, biologists were much more open to organism-level principles.”
The tide now seems to be turning, according to Herrera-Rincon and others. “It’s too simplistic to consider the genome as the only source of biological information,” she said. Researchers continue to study morphogens as a source of developmental information in the nervous system, for example. Last November, Levin and Chris Fields, an independent scientist who works in the area where biology, physics and computing overlap, published a paper arguing that cells’ cytoplasm, cytoskeleton and both internal and external membranes also encode important patterning data — and serve as systems of inheritance alongside DNA."
I've never encountered Manhattan chowder in Manhattan.
A superior product, but different enough that it's hard to call it "chowder." I assume it pisses off Bostonians, but I prefer NY to Boston generally.
Dear Buddha, why?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and no. I'm sorry. I really am.
I read "more intestines" and immediately suspected you of being into visceral knife fights, bloody surgery and the ebola virus.
Actually, the main issue is that NYC has so many other things that make it the best city in the world. Manhattan Chowder is literally the last thing on the list. Literally. It doesn't even categorically exist, practically. It's non-existent.
There's probably more intestines available to consume at fine dining spots and local hole-in-the-walls alike in NYC to make this statement equally true. My favorite taco joint a block from my job makes a killer lengua taco, and a killer buche taco. Just steer clear of the oreja.
Peoria on steroids is only real when it comes to Jim Thome. Come to the city and I'll show you days worth of cheap-ass food that is miles better.
I prefer them both. I want to come back to 'Murica and live out of Greyhound buses until I get so caked in dirt they kick me off and I have to trek up to Hanover's hovel in the Appalachians to get a shower and learn the banjo. Where do you live btw Noble? And do you have a shower, a hovel and/or a banjo?
Or I could just chuck hay bales for @ArguingWAristotleTiff mebbe??
I quickly skimmed through this debate, and Dr. Craig completely humiliated Rosenberg :lol: Why is it that atheists always lose in debates? Maybe it's because their positions are so undeveloped since they don't spend much effort on something they don't consider important. I remember reading Rosenberg's book as well a few years ago (some atheists here "loved" it) and I also found it pathetic. One thing that stuck with me is his advertising of Prozac to deal with how sucky life is :lol:
What I find more baffling is how seemingly intelligent people - say Stephen Hawking - could believe similarly ludicrous things as Rosenberg when it comes to metaphysics. I mean some of these positions cannot even be taken seriously, and it should be humiliating for an academic even to spout such nonsense. For example - take the issue of radioactive decay as evidence for uncaused events which Rosenberg uses as an example to illustrate that the Universe could have began to exist without a cause. Even to make such a claim is ludicrous - how can a Professor spout such nonsense without even understanding it? Sure, radioactive decay has no efficient cause. But what about other causes?! Of course it has other causes! It doesn't just happen without the existence of such and such an atom... It doesn't happen haphazardly, without being governed by some statistical laws. It has at minimum material, formal and final cause (in being directed towards decay for example). So far from being an "uncaused event" as Rosenberg claims, it has its causes in the nature of the respective atom. Just like virtual particles have their cause in the nature of quantum fields - they don't spontaneously occur in the absence of such fields... I certainly hope that the 95% of top scientists who are atheists don't believe such metaphysical crap, since if they do, then I seriously doubt their intelligence.
Do they? Or do you either a) forget the debates where they won (confirmation bias) or b) disagree with the atheist and so side with the theist as a matter of principle (standard bias)?
[*] He twists or ignores the rules of the debate (if any) and this gives him an advantage over his opponent, who is usually civilized enough to stick to the format. He takes a very brief part of his opening statement to state his own views, and takes the majority of the time speaking against his opponent. This has the following effects -
[*] After he strawmans and misrepresents his opponent's views, he then sets down his own set of points that he feels his opponent must prove in order to support his position. In most cases, those views have nothing to do with his opponents position and are completely different from what his opponent was going to assert. These points are usually absurd and in principle unassertable.
[*] Thanks to the way in which the propositional statements of most controlled debates are framed, Craig is almost never in a position in which he has to simultaneously prove the existence of a god, and the assertion that the god is in fact the Abrahamic god.
[*] Craig frequently name drops, referring to the works of famous historians, theologians and apologists, in lieu of presenting an actual rebuttal to his opponents statements. This usually takes the form of "My opponent's arguments have already been replied to by XYZ famous writer, hence I will just make a statement that it is invalid, without actually telling you what that rebuttal is." This is the height of intellectual dishonesty because,
[*] Craig's debating style can basically be characterised as heavily dependent on aggressive U.S. high school debating tactics, something which most of his opponents are too polite to either stoop to or call out (one exception was the very blunt denouncement of Craig's tactics by Lawrence Krauss). Unless the audience is attuned to the polite phrasing usually employed in academia, the severity of the criticism levelled against Craig by his opponents can easily be missed.
[/list]
They really do say "get" and not "take" a shower. I'm not sure why. I guess they give it to themselves.
“Queequeg,” said I, “do you think that we can make out a supper for us both on one clam?”
However, a warm savory steam from the kitchen served to belie the apparently cheerless prospect before us. But when that smoking chowder came in, the mystery was delightfully explained. Oh, sweet friends! hearken to me. It was made of small juicy clams, scarcely bigger than hazel nuts, mixed with pounded ship biscuit, and salted pork cut up into little flakes; the whole enriched with butter, and plentifully seasoned with pepper and salt.”
-Moby Dick, by Herman Melville
Why not save this for your next alteration of the Kitten bedtime story? :razz:
T Clark has proven that he gets to stay on my boat, in which one person needs to get tossed over in order for all left on the boat to survive! Well done! Well done!
I do wonder how many 'thinkers' are CPR certified.
Were you on a deserted island? Stranded in a Hurricane?
As an adult, an adult who can drive, why would you ever choose canned soup?
What on Earth would make you even try Campbell's soup of any kind let alone Chowder? :brow:
Without a single snivel? Just as long as your skin isn't as white as the underbelly of a Rainbow Trout because what would be a slight sun kiss on my skin, will put a paler person into a fit of Sun Poisoning that make sniveling seem like a cake walk.
I'll take that as an offer of dessert as well as an invitation to work. :up:
Sure. Cite to me one debate where you reckon the atheist wins.
Quoting Michael
Point me to them.
Quoting Michael
They had a professional panel of professors/intellectuals, the students voted, and the internet voted. In all 3 cases, Craig won by a LANDSLIDE.
I do not particularly think that Craig is a great proponent of theism (I think his apologetics is popular level at best). Edward Feser is much better than Craig for example, and has a lot of theological depth to him. But he speaks at a level where you actually need some philosophical training to understand.
So I have no problem admitting that an atheist won a debate if I do indeed think he has done so. But the fact of the matter is that no atheist that I've ever watched has won against Craig. Hitchens has done well rhetorically, but not in actual substance.
Quoting Michael
Is a circle any less of a circle if its radius is bigger? Likewise, is crap any better if it is long crap?
Quoting Michael
Unsubstantiated claim.
Quoting Michael
No, actually I've seen the contrary - his opponents strawman him. Rosenberg has repeatedly strawmanned Craig for example and failed to engage philosophically with what was said. Example: Rosenberg said that suffering and evil is inconsistent with an all-good, all-benevolent God. He never addressed Craig's rebuttal that the existence of the maximum good may entail at minimum the possibility of evil (since freedom is a good). Instead, he goes on a tangent about God designing a world where human beings would be inclined to freely choose just the good. But this misses the point - because morality means precisely doing what is good, even if it is not in your personal self-interest to do so. Rosenberg gives some stupid example of receiving $1000 for every correct answer you give to a simple arithmetic 10 question test, as an analogy about how a world could be designed where freedom would go hand-in-hand with doing good. His point being that nobody would answer the questions wrong, and nobody would choose evil. But that misses the point. Something is moral precisely because it is good regardless of the consequences it has on you personally. So if you always choose good simply because it is always in your self-interest to choose good, then you aren't really good. So God couldn't have created such a world, since it would not allow for morality. There is no Hercules without the Hydra and all suffering and the enemies he had to face.
Really, it's so ridiculous that it is actually shameful. The only thing that Rosenberg has proved in that debate is that he is an authentic ignoramus of the highest rank.
Etc.
Come on down! :strong:
Thanks,Tiff. It may take a while but I feel my inner trajectory is oriented in that direction. :)
Of course, NYC is simply better than Boston in nearly every way.
Although I did very much enjoy the Mary Beard vs. Boris Johnson debate.
:vomit:
Oh, I might watch it then.
Every debate on here between an atheist and a theist.
We never had any, except one between 180 Proof and someone else (not very capable) 2000 years ago.
In discussions, most atheists here are not very good. I would say on average, the few theists we have (Mariner, myself, etc.) are better capable of discussing issues of religion than your average atheist, who literarily shows very little, if any understanding of the underlying matters (no surprise, they think God is unimportant).
And 180 won? Then atheists don't always lose.
Game, set, and match.
I definitely do. But I acknowledge it.
My claim was with regards to public debates (like the one I linked).
I don't remember that debate on PF very well (I read it long ago), but yes, I think I remember thinking that 180 won that time.
Never watched any. But a cursory Google search suggests that Stephen Law and Shelly Kagan both won against Craig.
Well @Baden, this is an emergency.
Quoting Baden
No, I haven't said I guessed.
Quoting Baden
False.
Quoting Baden
Then why were you (and the liberal media) so convinced he would lose?
Quoting Baden
I was not doing statistics. The question was whether Trump would have won or not - I was not interested in what his "chances" of winning were. I was never doing statistics, or attempting to do statistics. My method was qualitative, not quantitative.
It is like in engineering - a good engineer can tell you that a structure will fail through a qualitative analysis, without doing any calculations. A dumb one needs to calculate.
Quoting Baden
Sure, we will test it. Next time an adequate opportunity comes along, I will let you know. We will need to gather a few data points though.
Well, you pick one, link it here, and I will watch it and let you know.
I was not on a deserted island, but if I were, I wouldn't bring a can of soup because I couldn't open it unless I had the foresight to bring a can opener, but if I'm one to have foresight, I'd instead bring maybe a phone to call and ask for help instead of a can opener.
Your attack against Campbell's soup is an attack against America. I'd ask that you take it back.
For real, NYC is the best city on earth. I agree. I'd live there if it wouldn't cost me a million dollars to have a one room apartment that was converted from a tenement home.
It is indeed very pricey.
I'm not going to go in circles on this. The fact remains that you've given no basis to take any of your claims seriously. And it's pointless for you to talk about research methodologies when you've expressed no knowledge of what they are, how they work, how they are combined in practice and how they can be distinguished from the non-methodological guesswork that you did (according to your own description), which led you to the erroneous conclusion that Trump was more popular than Clinton (again, your stated reasons for predicting Trump's win point only to him winning the overall vote (which did not happen) and give no explanation of the actual split result (unlike the pollsters I mentioned who did account properly for this scenario)). Anyway, no matter:
Quoting Agustino
Sure. The point being that I'll use polls and you use whatever you want (just please don't call it "qualitative" until you can demonstrate you understand what that is. It's not a word you can just throw around to mean "non-scientific" as it doesn't mean that at all) and then we'll make a percentage prediction and see who is more accurate.
You can give a screenshot of it and blank out the names and content. Then we can investigate.
I hope he's not sharing porn again. :gasp:
He always shares that but not to you :joke:
Yeah, Michael solved it.
Quoting Michael
:sparkle: :100:
No, not a percentage prediction - that's quantitative.
You realize you can use qualitative methods to predict numbers right?
Hippy happy to take anything on. Science vs. truthiness. May the best one win!
Easy. Van de Wee Jik Vrek will win it all.
In NYC; miraculously, I do have a shower. I had to sell my banjo for rent money, though. This month the washboard has to go. It's all worth it, though.
Hmmm, you're right.
Considering my antipathy for doing anything that would actually result in (much) monetary gain, I am probably heading in that direction.
Well yes, in some cases. That's not usually what I've been capable to do in those rare events that I'm talking about.
Quoting Benkei
I wish. I can't do that one. It's only few events that I understand in that intuitive way, so when one comes along I will let you know.
Quoting Baden
Yeah, to a certain extent. It wasn't always a binary choice - I gave the Juve example. There were others in football.
Quoting Maw
You and @Baden have very strange personalities. Statistical analysis, scientific thought, etc. have their uses. However, intuition also has its own uses. For example, say you are diagnosed with a serious life-threatening illness that is officially incurable. Then you will fight with your whole being - mind, body, soul, all your energy to solve the health problem. To survive you need to channel this tremendous energy, and give your entire being to it. You will probably read everything you can find about the condition - but a time will come when you have to drop the reliance on authority since the authority has failed to find a way. You yourself have to find the way if you are to survive such a crisis. Then you are truly living - when you have abandoned your reliance on authority, and are finally finding your own individual way. You have to give up and cast out of your mind the thought that 90% of people diagnosed with it die, for example. You cannot look in the statistics for an answer, for what you are seeking cannot be found in statistics. In such a situation, you finally have to think of yourself as an individual, and disregard everything that isn't related to you and your condition as individual.
The pundits - they all look to the polls to predict election results. Then their jaw drops, and they return to telling us how great the method is after the election result comes through. Just like the two of you. You weren't around back then Maw, but Baden was. And guess what, he was shouting from the roof tops that the election is finished, Crooked has won, that we're wasting our time, etc.
Quoting Noble Dust
Dayuuum... that's not good ma dawg. Have you looked into moving to a cheaper part of NYC? Or sharing with a friend?
Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy
Word.
Ah yes, money; I've heard of that.
Do I have to fill my posts up with copious amounts of emoji's for you to detect sarcasm? :roll: :rofl: :razz: :nerd:
Quoting Agustino
He wasn't talking to you, but actually...
Yeah, that would be a good idea, why not :P
It takes the oomph out of the joke, though.
Hmm maybe, but jokes that work while talking and listening to each other by voice, don't necessarily translate well when put in writing
But if you had read the whole exchange with Baden and Hanover, you'd be aware that the whole exchange was sarcastic. Slow down buddy!
ok
Actually, never mind.
Well there are a lot of ifs there mate :lol:
So then you recognise that intuition has a very important role in life in helping you solve some problems right?
Only one brah!
If @Agustino moves any faster, he won't even have time to read what he replies to.
:eyes:
You do know the way to my heart don't you, my lovely? :hearts:
Quoting Agustino
If you want to talk in a broader way about the benefits of intuition, we're unlikely to disagree so strongly. But we were talking about polling. So...
Quoting Agustino
That's funny. I was shouting that because I didn't rely enough on the polls which were telling me Trump had a decent chance of winning (about 1/3) and that a split vote was highly possible. I was relying mostly on my intuition. My bad. I should have listened more carefully to what the more reliable pollsters were saying. (Although after Comey hit Clinton with that curve ball in the last week, I felt it was much more in play anyhow tbh.)
No, we're talking about predicting election results brah!
Quoting Baden
But at the time, you were telling us that this is what the polls are saying! So what happened? Did you change your mind? New polls came in? You didn't study the polls enough?
No horse riding.
Bugger off, I got there first.
Again...what the polls predicted happened within the margin of error: 538 were 1.5% off and that threw up a scenario they specifically said was significantly likely. But my own personal view was stronger than the polls in favour of Trump losing. My intuitional bad as I said.
Shhh, @Baden and I are having a quiet night in at my NYC hovel nibbling on baked beans and listening to Pete Seeger.
Apologies. I'm currently suffering from the @Agustino effect. I'll get over it soon after I log off.
That too. :100:
Intuition is not helpful in predicting elections, and whatever that farrago on an "incurable illness" you were prattling on about above.
Exactly.
You are? Look at the level of comments I have to deal with:
Quoting Agustino
:chin:
Don't ask me, brohan.
I'll give that one a miss then.
Why not?
Quoting Maw
Hmmm, yes, if achieving certainty is your goal, probably intuition isn't as useful (by its very nature). But if taking good decisions is your goal, then intuition in many cases is very useful (in some cases even more useful than other options).
Quoting Maw
I have not read Kahneman's work.
Quoting Baden
What?
Ok ok Brohannes Jams, what do you need to know??
What's your address?
Hanover's hovel (shower section),
Backside of Mt. Banjo,
Appalachia,
Georgia,
'Murica.
1. It's only available to subscribers
2. That would be @Agustino
My next response to you (after this one) is on it's way.
Yep. I highly recommend it.
You Sir Benkei, may be the Captain of this vessel. Well done!
Thank you for asking me to take that back but alas the truth is the truth. Campbell's soup is a can of sodium with a dash of veggie water. So bad for you :sad:
I can think of stranger words but chowder is definitely on the list. Am I the only one that thinks that it sounds like it has a sexual connotation?
A seriously over rated form of energy exchange.
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind
Blood in the streets in the town of New Haven
Blood stains the roofs and the palm trees of Venice
Blood in my love in the terrible summer
Bloody red sun of Phantastic L.A.
Have you watched the film "Hall Pass"? A guy in that talks about this sex thing called "fake chowder".
I'll split one with you tomorrow Maw. I'll be cooking an Irish dinner of Corned Beef Rubens, sliced thin, sauerkraut and Swiss cheese, on toasted Jewish Rye with Thousand Island dressing served with little red potatoes.
This is interesting to me: my Granny's recipe calls for Russian Dressing where mine is Thousand Island. But if I were to use hers I would be:
Celebrating an Irish holiday using:
German sauerkraut
Swiss cheese
Russian dressing
Jewish rye
It would appear the only thing from Ireland is the potatoes and here in the states they are likely from Idaho. :lol:
Is it a Springsteen song?
I cannot say that I have but having a ranch full of males, chances are it has been on the tv at one time or another because I surely couldn't have come up with that connotation on my own. :yikes:
So NYC chowder.
No, it's by my avatar, the Lizard King.
Looks like the Doors.
:rofl:
Ohhhh I got it!!!
"Fuck me like an animal!"
Right group, wrong song.
I never expected to get any of these things anyway. Nobody's going to put any Napalm Death lyrics up. Carry on...
I can accommodate! Russian it is! Luck of the Irish to you!
I’m gonna go with Meshuggah.
Although I'm sure they exist, I've never had good clam chowder or raw oysters outside of New England. Even here I've had some bad ones. I'll put in a plug for Legal Seafood's fish chowder. I moan when I eat it. Never had good crab cakes except around the Chesapeake Bay.
How do you feel about the substitution of Cole slaw for sauerkraut?
No. (Not that you asked me or anything).
The creaminess of the cole slaw is a nice contrast. I prefer just a plain old pastrami with mustard from somewhere like Katz’s, though.
It’s overpriced, but when you consider the fact that it’s basically two sandwiches, it’s not bad.
Why would you move to a place requiring you to act as if you are in a warzone?
Well, the place isn't a warzone. It's just that I'm frightened of crime, and have lived most of my life in crime free zones. Comparatively, Las Vegas isn't as 'crime free' although, I've analyzed some crime maps and have looked at safer areas to live in, in the area. Living in a gated community would be a plus also, so realistically, I might not even need a gun as long as I don't expose myself to situations that would entice having one as a benefit.
Yeah; that's the biased statistics of having well off friends.
Then get a dog, if the bylaws are not unreasonably restrictive. Can your gun fetch and warm your lap during cold winter nights? Didn't think so.
Good idea. Will consider it in more detail. Again if I can land a job in some gated community then the previous is all unnecessary.
Hmm, Im going to take that on face value and just disregard the idea altogether.
Sauce.
Tomato and mushroom please. :wink:
Mmm no. I love cole slaw and dislike sauerkraut unless it is on a Ruben. But cabbage in general is never cooked in my kitchen. Ugh.
@Hanover
You had me at Pumpernickel! I have met very few people that like Pumpernickel bread, what a wonderful creation! Many more people are willing to compromise on the Marble Rye and think they are going to win over a Pumpernickel loving person but alas they are mistaken.
Without looking it up on the Internets: what do you think the % of Arizona residents own firearms?
Are you saying that Las Vegas is a "warzone"?
Ave Maria
Where is the justice in this world?
The wicked make so much noise Mother,
The righteous stay oddly still
With no wisdom all of the riches in the world leave us poor tonight.
It's strength is not without humility
It's weakness an untreatable disease
[b]And war is always of the choice
Of the Chosen who will not have to fight.[/b][i]
[/i]Ave Maria
For me Pavarotti was not an Opera singer but rather Pavarotti was an Opera~ :heart:
And so we could dye our rivers green
[url=https://postimages.org/]
Can Americans market or what?
I am telling you we could sell sand in the Sahara desert. :smirk:
Looks like every river I ever saw in China.
Oh no!
David Dennison :lol: will get screwed by Avenatti, who is like a bull, a real fighter. I can already feel it. The more they fight him, the worse it will get.
Or maybe he was liquidized...
#basta :clap: :clap:
Oh, I really have no idea. You'll have to tell me.
Love cabbage raw. Love it steamed. Love it in a salad. Love it with lots of black pepper. Love it in coleslaw as long as it's not mixed with other vegetables and the dressing is just mayonnaise and vinegar.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/17/facebook-cambridge-analytica-kogan-data-algorithm?CMP=fb_gu
Are you going to provide evidence for this assertion?
Kermit has been dead for many years. It was a very sad day. A vile impostor was put in his place.
Is that you waiting?
Jeremy Corbyn: kinda stoopid.
Check mate, mate.