• Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    You can find that very esily all the time, if you compare CNN coverage with the original footage of what they cover. Of course, if you stay inside the CNN/BBC/Guardian/NYT echo chamber, you always hear the same opinion narrative. — Nobeernolife
    Give me some notable examples of CNN spreading falsehoods. I want to understand what you'rw talking about.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Trump is weirdly intuitive about things. Whether it's luck or skill, I'd say skill. Nobody puts up buildings in NYC without some smarts about people and things. — fishfry
    That seems to be what Trump lovers believe. Confirmation bias is a many splendored thing.
  • is the we only use 10% of our brain true and if it is how do we obtain higher
    just watched a movie about unlocking more than 10% of the brain — suleman
    That's a myth. See this.
  • Coronavirus
    As we waste our antibiotic resources in various ways (like feeding them to cattle to make them grow faster) — Bitter Crank
    Antibiotics are manufactured in sufficient quantity to meet demand. If they were not fed to cattle, less would be manufactured.
  • Coronavirus
    ↪Hanover
    Yes, she probably would have done better. Consider Trump's various failures:

    In a National Emergency, Presidential Competence Is Crucial
  • Do colors exist?
    Is there some reason this way of thinking about color is not generalizable to light of any wavelength? — Cabbage Farmer
    Yes: the quality of the experience itself (the qualia). This is not decomposible.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I do. Real news can make mistakes. Fake news on the other hand "is a form of news consisting of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes ... written and published usually with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically, often using sensationalist, dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership."
    — Michael

    Pretty good description of what people are regularly fed by CNN, the NYT and the rest of the so-called mainstream media.
    How many have apologized for this fake Trump bashing news that was splattered all over recenty?     — Nobeernolife
    Seriously, when you make such a statement, it just sounds like you're parrotting Trump. Michael was referring to the original definition of "fake news" - falsehoods that get widely circulated. Trump uses the term to refer to unfavorable coverage. Avoid conflating the two, and you could then have productive conversations. If CNN is spreading actual falsehoods, that's something I want to know about. I'm also fine hearing about positive things Trump's done that CNN omitted. But be willing to discuss both the good and the bad.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    No. Didn´t read it in detail, but right off the bat I see so many loaded assumptions, it is clear this is another hit piece. — Nobeernolife
    Name a few of the assumptions you find questionable.

    And what else to expect from the Brookings Institute.
    I expect thoughtful analysis by experts. I expect the same thing from the Cato Institute and American Enterprise institute. I don't always agree with them, but its worthwhile to hear alternative, educated perspectives. You seem dismissive of any perspective you disagree with. No wonder you're so devoted to a cartoonist.
  • The fundamental question of Metaphysics: Why something rather than nothing
    Then there's the matter of how claiming that all things that exist have existence as a common "property" is a tautology. Well, just as the statement, "clouds, snow and doctors' coats are white" isn't a tautology for I'm not here saying, "white is white" but instead drawing attention to the fact that all the objects mentioned have whiteness in common, the statement, "all objects that exist have existence in common", is also not a tautology. The claim isn't "existing objects exist", in which case it would be a tautology but about a common "property" shared, in which case it isn't. — TheMadFool
    It's problematic to treat existence as a property. A property is a characteristic that some objects have, and others do not. There are no objects that lack existence.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I ask if the criticism makes sense or not. — Nobeernolife
    Does this criticism make sense to you?
  • Coronavirus
    This article provides a very interesting perspective on the spread of coronavirus, its containment, and prospects for returning to normalcy.

    Summary of the article: Strong coronavirus measures today should only last a few weeks, there shouldn’t be a big peak of infections afterwards, and it can all be done for a reasonable cost to society, saving millions of lives along the way. If we don’t take these measures, tens of millions will be infected, many will die, along with anybody else that requires intensive care, because the healthcare system will have collapsed.
  • The fundamental question of Metaphysics: Why something rather than nothing
    You're erroneously treating "nothing" as a rigid referrent.

    Consider Propositions 3 and 4:
    3. Nothing is longer than A
    This means: For all x: x<=A

    4. Nothing is shorter than C
    This means: For all y: y>=C

    y and x are two different variables, having no mathematical or logical relation between them. In your proof, you conflate them (in effect).
    — Relativist

    I'm examining a property, here length, which x and y can share.     — TheMadFool

    The problem is here:
    Ergo, we can combine statements 3 and 4 as:

    5. Nothing is longer than A which is longer than C which in turn is longer than nothing.
    In this statement, "nothing" means there is no x > A. i.e. such a thing doesn't exist. Properties are associated with existents, but you're claiming a non-existing thing has properties.
  • Why Nothingness Cosmogony is Nonsense
    Lawrence Krauss actually does think science can speak about nothing. A lot of physicist do. — Gregory
    They define "nothing" as an absence of particles (matter).
  • The Long-Term Consequences of Covid-19
    This is a wake-up call for both doctors and pharmacists to renew their search for safe and efficacious antiviral drugs. — TheMadFool
    Researchers haven't been sleeping, it's just a difficult problem to solve. Polio is caused by a virus, and research led to the polio vaccine. HIV is a virus, and a number of anti-viral medications came out of that research. Influenza can be caused by a virus, and the anti-viral TAMIFLU was developed in the 1990s.
  • Why Nothingness Cosmogony is Nonsense
    As the name implies, it says all ENERGY in the cosmos is zero. So something can come from nothing says Hawking's in Hawking's Universe documentary — Gregory
    I know he calls this "something from nothing." Laurence Krauss and Alexandar Vilenkin make the same assertion, but it's still not a true nothingness. Here's an excerpt of a review of Krauss' book. The criticism is equally applicable to each of them:

    “It happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electro­magnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.

    The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in A Universe From Nothing--the laws of relativistic quantum field theories--are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on--and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story
  • Why Nothingness Cosmogony is Nonsense
    The zero-energy model says there is no energy in the world. I don't agree with it, but that is smart people saying nothingness CAN exist. — Gregory
    Zero energy models assume a quantum system exists. That ain't nothing.
  • Why Nothingness Cosmogony is Nonsense
    Existence is (a posteriori) metaphysically necessary.
    — Relativist

    Not a priori? Then what does this answer?     — Gregory
    Correct- the op argument only establishes a posteriori necessity.

    Stll, we do know that existence is at least metaphyiscally possible a priori. The residual question is: is nothingness possible?

    There is no nothingness possible world, because a world is defined by its existents, not by negative facts. This provides an epistemic basis for believing nothingness is impossible, and therefore existence is necessary.
  • Why Nothingness Cosmogony is Nonsense
    Would any atheists care to try to explain how the cosmogonic potential for reality’s existence can authentically be deemed nothingness? — Randy333
    You are correct. You basically argued for the truth of ex nihilo nihil fit

    You're conclusion can be stated this way:

    Existence is (a posteriori) metaphysically necessary.
  • The fundamental question of Metaphysics: Why something rather than nothing
    1. object A is the longest

    2. Object C is the shortest

    3. Nothing is longer than A

    4. Nothing is shorter than C

    Ergo, we can combine statements 3 and 4 as:

    5. Nothing is longer than A which is longer than C which in turn is longer than nothing. In other words the following statement is true:

    6. Nothing > A > C > Nothing (">" here means "longer than")     — TheMadFool
    You're erroneously treating "nothing" as a rigid referrent.

    Consider Propositions 3 and 4:
    3. Nothing is longer than A
    This means: For all x: x<=A

    4. Nothing is shorter than C
    This means: For all y: y>=C

    y and x are two different variables, having no mathematical or logical relation between them. In your proof, you conflate them (in effect).
  • Coronavirus
    Shows that he must be cracking under the pressure and what a terrible leader he is. — praxis
    Cracking? It's his normal behavior:

    The Atlantic: Trump’s Playbook Is Terribly Ill-Suited to a Pandemic    :
    The new pandemic is a challenge for which his playbook seems uniquely unsuited.

    The Trump crisis playbook to date has involved bullying both political allies, to keep them in line, and potential opponents, to prevent them from talking. It has involved lying. It has involved the deflection of attention onto other matters. It has involved attacking the attackers, spinning conspiracy theories about and spawning investigations of the investigators.
  • Coronavirus
    True to form, Trump is dealing with the problem of public fear by attacking the media:

    "What do you say to Americans who are scared though? I guess, nearly 200 dead, 14,000 who are sick, millions, as you witnessed, who are scared right now," Alexander asked. "What do you say to Americans who are watching you right now who are scared?"

    “I say that you’re a terrible reporter,” Trump said. “That’s what I say. I think that’s a very nasty question. The American people are looking for answers and they’re looking for hope, and you’re doing sensationalism," Trump said.     (Source)
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Baden
    ↪Baden
    I've always been of the opinion that a large percent of the untruths uttered by Trump are the product of stupidity, rather than intentional deceit. He really didn't believe we'd have a problem with the coronavirus.
  • Coronavirus
    The questioning from the reporter related to using the malaria drug as a treatment, and he asked "Is it possible that your impulse to put a positive spin on things may be giving Americans a false sense of hope." This is a worldview distinction you don't appreciate. There is no such thing as false hope. There's this pervasive idea that pessimism is of some value, as if it's related to truth, and even worse that it doesn't create reality. I'm not suggesting that you should jump off a ledge if you're optimistic enough to think you'll fly, but I am saying that as long as Trump continues to ask Americans to take all reasonable precautions (which he has been), then one ought be optimistic. — Hanover
    Trump has a credibility problem. On Feb 28, he labeled the coronavirus the "Democrat's new hoax", while this week he said, "“I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic … I’ve always viewed it as very serious.”

    There is a chance chloroquine will help, but the evidence for its efficacy is largely anecdotal. It's stupid to place our hopes in this one thing - consider the impact if it doesn't pan out. Earlier this week he made some stupid comments about a vaccine being available in a matter of months, only to be immediately contradicted by Antony Fauci. If Trump's going to continue with his idiocy, we'd all be better off if he'd stay in the background.

    Real hope can be delivered by outlining how the government is staying ahead of the problem. This includes tracking critical supplies (ventilators, masks, gloves, hospital beds, medical staff...) and what's being done to address production and distribution problems. Projections on infection rates, hospitalization rates, and even death rates should be tracked and shared - as these reflect the demand side of the problem. Set benchmarks and track progress. Adjust response as necessary. These all show that things are under control, which is so much better than just lying and claiming things are under control as Trump had been doing.
  • Coronavirus
    That's a dangerous way to respond to a pandemic even if it does pay off this one time. — Michael


    How's it dangerous? It was either nothing or the malaria drug.     — Hanover

    Virus drug touted by President Trump, Elon Musk can kill with just two gram dose
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪NOS4A2
    I hope you realize Trump is a populist, not a libertarian.

    So you think he's taking it too seriously. Does that mean you'd prefer to let nature take its course? I guess that would reduce social security outlays.
  • Bernie Sanders
    ↪Xtrix
    :up:
  • Bernie Sanders
    But as you saw, Bernie is very close with Biden in national polls and fairs well in battleground states as well. So it is a little riskier, but not by much. — Xtrix
    The differences between Bernie and Biden are numerically small in the battleground states, but in my mind, the significance is magnified by the context: Trump can win each one of those states. If he wins the 3 biggest (Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan), he will win the election. He won those 3 in 2016. This makes me more nervous than does the coronavirus. Despite the low probability I will die if I get it, I'm taking the recommended precautions (social distancing, hand-washing, etc). Analogously, I'm taking precautions against Trump's being reelected.
  • Bernie Sanders
    ↪creativesoul
    No worries, bro.
  • Bernie Sanders
    ↪Xtrix
    Although I went too far when I claimed Bernie was unelectable, the fact is that the data suggests he's got a lesser chance than Biden. Do you agree that it's reasonable to take that into account when voting in the primary? IOW, if my top priority is to get rid of Trump, it makes the most sense to nominate the guy more likely to win.

    On the other hand, if someone's top priority is to move toward a more just social system, one might choose to take more risk and vote for Bernie. I'm not going to tell them it's wrong to take that risk, but I would like them to be aware that they ARE taking that risk.
  • How will Bernie supporters vote if Biden is nominee?
    As of now, 22% of survey respondents have said they will not vote for Biden if he's the nominee. This implies you disagree with Bernie's asessment of Trump, as he stated it in the debate (see below). Why do you trust his judgment in other matters, if he's so wrong about this?

    Bernie said:

    "[It is] unacceptable for Trump to be “blabbering with unfactual information which is confusing the general public...Trump is the most dangerous president in the modern history of the country. ...“The United States cannot deal with a president who is a pathological liar, who is running a corrupt administration, who obviously doesn’t know the Constitution, who believes he is above the law, who is a racist and a sexist and a homophobe."
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    How does everyone feel about Trump's handling of the pandemic? Is he rising to the occasion? This article was published 2 weeks ago:


    Trump’s Playbook Is Terribly Ill-Suited to a Pandemic

    "Americans should all hope [Trump] succeeds in mitigating the danger posed by the virus, though there are reasons to fear he is not up to the task. The new pandemic is a challenge for which his playbook seems uniquely unsuited.

    "The Trump crisis playbook to date has involved bullying both political allies, to keep them in line, and potential opponents, to prevent them from talking. It has involved lying. It has involved the deflection of attention onto other matters. It has involved attacking the attackers, spinning conspiracy theories about and spawning investigations of the investigators. It has involved bombastic dismissals of serious issues as the latest “hoax” or “witch hunt” or instance of “presidential harassment.” And it has involved endlessly reminding people that the economy is humming along and their 401(k) plans are doing well.

    "But a virus, unlike a Republican member of Congress, cannot be bullied. It doesn’t care about the president’s poll numbers. Nor does it pay any mind to whether the president describes his own handling of its presence as perfect."
  • Bernie Sanders
    Yes, and please do.

    You're right about turnout -- that's harder to predict. My "hunch" tells me that enthusiasm matters, but that doesn't seem to be panning out for Bernie with younger voters (who he wins 80% or so of).     — Xtrix

    This website shows the importance of the most populous swing states. It shows there to be 12 combinations of these states that can result in a Trump win. So I examined the most recent polls from those states. It indeed shows Biden has a better chance to beat Trump than Bernie (details below). You convinced me to focus solely on the polls, and they indeed show Biden has a better chance. Can you now accept that?

    Florida (29 electoral votes) Trump beats both, but Biden (49-51) has a more realistic chance than Bernie (47-53). Florida is a must win for Trump (Florida is in 11 of the 12 winning combinations for Trump), so it's a big deal to have a chance there.

    Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes)- polls are mixed as to who wins, but all polls show Biden winning by a higher margin than Bernie, or losing by a lower margin. 7 of the 12 Republican win scenarios depend on Pennsylvania; it's winnable, but not a sure thing.

    Michigan (16 electoral votes) lots of polls; some show advantage for Bernie, some for Biden. Michigan is in 8 of the 12 combinations for a Trump win.

    North Carolina (15 electoral votes). Trump wins some polls, loses others. Biden wins by greater margin than Bernie, or loses by a smaller margin. (NC is in 7 of the 12 Trump winning combinations). Winnable, but not a sure thing.

    Arizona (11 electoral votes) Biden has better margin than Bernie in 2 of the 3 recent polls.

    Wisconsin(10 electoral votes) Negligible difference between Bernie and Biden.
  • Bernie Sanders
    Bigot? — creativesoul
    Yes, because you assume that the company that employed me (note the past tense; I'm retired) defines my political deology. Here's some other things about me:

    I grew up poor. My dad was a cook in a diner, my mom was a grocery store clerk. I was able to go to college because my father was over 65, and at the time, there was a social security benefit for children of retirees if they were in college (Reagan killed this BTW). I knew college was my way out of poverty, so I took advantage of my opportunity and got a degree in a field that was well-paying. The job opportunities in Houston are predominantly in the oil business. I have no regrets. The object of the game was to get out of poverty. I did. What's wrong with that? Is that not part of your vision?

    I never forgot where I came from, and how I got out of it: government assistance, and I'm both angered and saddened that the opportunities available to me to climb out of poverty have disappeared. Cost of college and health care are barriers that keep the poor chained to their circumstances.

    That would explain the push for Biden and the attempt to portray Bernie as 'unelectable'... — creativesoul
    I have given my honest analysis. I may be wrong. Xtrix provided some cogent reasons to think I might be. You have just been an asshole.
  • How will Bernie supporters vote if Biden is nominee?
    Bernie could easily inform the black voters of how the DNC has been horrible for them, as well as the RNC — creativesoul
    Great idea! He could tell them, "What have you got to lose?" Hmmm...that sounds vaguely familiar.
    Ross Perot got nearly nineteen percent against Bush Sr. and Clinton. — creativesoul
    Perot got zero electoral votes. Hillary won the popular vote 48% to 46%. The election will be won in the swing states.
  • Bernie Sanders
    Finally, I live in Texas, and worked for an oil company 33 years. — Relativist


    That would explain the push for Biden and the attempt to portray Bernie as 'unelectable'...     — creativesoul
    Bigot.
  • Bernie Sanders
    You make some good points, so I'm reconsidering. I'll review the latest polling in swing states and see what they tell us.

    One thing that doesn't seem to be measurable is voter turnout. e.g. Turnout by African Americans was the difference in Obama winning and Hillary losing. On this measure, Biden's popularity with blacks is important.     — Xtrix
  • Bernie Sanders
    ↪ssu
    Trump will surely spin, but as you said: who cares about facts? If facts matter, then lies matter.
  • Bernie Sanders
    And of course he actually hasn't delivered, but that doesn't matter. — ssu
    Which of those items did he not deliver on at least in a qualified way? To be clear, I'm not a fan of the deliverables.
  • Bernie Sanders
    But I think in your case the evidence is being ignored for a more speculative and "instincts"-based justification. — Xtrix
    What evidence am I ignoring? I haven't ignored the polling, I just don't think a raw reading of the polls tells the whole story - note how variable they are. This suggests a higher degree of error in them than the statistical analysis suggests. I'll give you more background on my position.

    The 1st general election I voted in was 1972. I was a big-time fan of George McGovern. He was very liberal, and very popular among young voters like me. We believed he would change the course America was on. I was so enamored of his message that I was convinced he could win. Nixon trounced him election 520 to 17 electoral votes. There are parallels to Bernie: appeal to the young; ideologically far from the center. And supporters who think with their hearts instead of their heads.

    It's hard for an extremist to win on either side (and I don't use the term pejoratively). Goldwater was an extremist Conservative, and he got trounced. I think it's because most people fear the unknown, and radical change entails lots of unknowns. I've heard from political scientists who back this up. This is the coventional wisdom. It could be wrong, but it makes no sense to dismiss it on the basis of wishful thinking - and I see lots of that in Bernie supporters (that comes out in some of the post in this thread).

    Finally, I live in Texas, and worked for an oil company 33 years. Consequently I know a lot of Republicans. Some of them aren't happy with Trump, but they're downright scared of Bernie. Most consider Biden safe and acceptable. This is consistent with what I've read and heard from never-Trumper Republicans in the news. I've heard no Republicans express the converse view, that they could live with Bernie, but not Biden.
  • Does free will exist?
    I would argue that there are 3 things that enforce your actions. Beliefs, Desires (or wants), Mood. None of which are your choice. — chatterbears
    Your beliefs, desires, and mood contribute to making you who you are. Your choices are therefore a product of you, and you alone.

    It's true that you (your beliefs, desires, moods) were caused, but you weren't intentionally caused, whereas your misdeeds are intentional acts - and it is this intentionality that makes you morally accountable. Your DNA and environment were not product of deliberation, and choice making.

    You chose the misdeed from among a set of options, and you knew your choice was morally wrong. This makes you blameworthy. Blaming your mama, no matter how bad her parenting, doesn't get you off the hook, because you own your choices.

    You would not have done the misdeed had you been more mindful of the harm it would cause, or taken the consequences more seriously. The memory of your guilt will have changed you. You will have learned from your mistake, and because of this learning you will not repeat it. If you abandon the notion of blameworthiness, you will be rationalizing continuing bad behavior. You are a moral agent because your moral beliefs can influence your actions. You have both the knowledge and freedom you need to do the right thing. Your DNA and past environment had no such freedom, and their respective consequences were not the product of moral deliberation.
Home » Relativist