Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/23/19 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    It's pretty easy, and it's been done to death. Most of their arguments are strawmen, in that they make a false or misunderstood claim to attack, instead of a more difficult, legitimate claim. For instance, that the creation of proteins is astronomically improbable, therefore it couldn't have happened. Since they mistakenly think the universe is only a few thousand years old, they can't accept that evolution had millions of years to miss before it finally hit. Many of the arguments are nitpicking Darwin, as if the theory began and ended with him. They ignore what every scientist knows, that theories are dynamic, changing as new evidence shapes them into better and more accurate predictions. And they keep repeating arguments that have been refuted, which is seriously dishonest from an intellectual perspective. I still hear "If we descended from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" being spread to ignorant audiences. They study evolution only enough to cherry-pick the parts many don't understand, and then ask questions they don't want answers to. If they really studied evolution sincerely, with an open mind, they would come to the obvious conclusion that there's no other way it could work. Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution describes how it works, with observational accuracy backed up by more evidence than almost any other theory.
  2. 5 points
    Trump has relentlessly insisted for 3 and a half years that Mexico would pay for a border wall. No nuance, no doubts, no maybes, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. He held rallies a;; over the country leading people in chants where he'd say "who's going the pay for the wall" and stadiums full of supporters when yell "MEXICO". Trump has given interviews and briefings where he'd cut reporters off and insult those who challenged how he'd get Mexico to pay. Now here we are with the govt shutdown as Trump demands a newly elected House majority give him the money tax payer money for his wall......and some people are actually trying to launch arguments blaming Democrats .
  3. 4 points
    Do you understand that one side lied, broke the law, got prosecuted + fined + reported to the police for criminal action, and the other side didn't? Are you somehow pretending that the situation was symmetrical? Well, it's hard to say. But racism is wrong, and played in favour of "Leave" Xenophobia is wrong, and played in favour of "Leave" External interference is wrong, and played in favour of "Leave" And the margin by which thecheats won is small. Imagine this was a football game and, after the match, it emerged that the winning side had played a "ringer". The acceptable outcomes would be that (1) The cheats would lose by default or (2) there would be a rematch. Why does anyone think it is reasonable to hold the future of the UK to lower standards of propriety than they would for a game of football ?
  4. 3 points
    The important point is that the NHS won't say "Go away until you've got some money". The delay is not caused by an institutional policy to do so but by practical limitations and availability of the necessary resources. The US is the richest nation in the world and Daedalus is going through this shit; great advert for the American health model... not.
  5. 3 points
    And I thought it was something to do with corona
  6. 3 points
    Thanks. That's clear enough. We know the Earth's not expanding so we know we can discount one of the theories. I suggest you hold a vigil for the lost soul of your idea and then lay it peacefully to rest. It's not coming back.
  7. 3 points
    Oof, what a very white washed and Euro-centric retelling of an extremely brutal history.
  8. 3 points
    I believe they felt it was an attempt to relieve the pressure on Trump without actually moving the needle toward opening government. So from their perspective, the two main issues of opening government and border security, were completely ignored. Paying the workers, which is good for the workers of course, does nothing to get food inspectors, etc. back to work. All it would do is prolong the government shutdown by making things easier for Trump. So the Republicans are saying "our bill will help the workers by getting them paid" and the Democrats are responding with "our bill will help the workers by getting them paid AND reopen government". Voting 'yes' on the Republican bill will only delay reopening government. From my perspective, that was a smart move by Republicans. They knew it wouldn't get passed but they figured it would make them look good and make the Democrats look bad. And on the off-chance that it passed, it would give Trump greater ability to fight for his wall.
  9. 3 points
    These types of things tend to work both ways. When women try to convey to you a lifetime of frustration that comes with being treated as "less", asking that you PLEASE stop using language that they feel continues the legacy of discrimination against them, and you respond with words like "weirdo", "revolutionary", "non-issue", and "stopped listening", they realize you are not on their side and they then act and vote accordingly. By complaining about things like this, they are asking you to convey whatever message you'd like, but to simply use different words. But when you ask them to stop complaining about such language, you are essentially asking them to limit their fight for equality. You are being asked by them to choose sides, and the message you are sending is that you'd rather oppose them than support them. You've made clear your position on this and I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just telling you how many women view this, and why I've chosen to modify my language accordingly.
  10. 3 points
    I'm not going to quote snipe back and forth. I'll just post my thoughts in hopes of finding places we agree again. When we discuss topics like healthcare, everyone always trots out the "how are we going to pay for it" canard. Some people object to this seemingly reflexive response because it never seems like we have that same response when discussing military spending, going to war, cutting taxes, etc. There is always room for spending. There are tools we can use to account for it. The government budget is not like a household budget. Taxes can be increased. Money can be printed and borrowed. There's always a need to be vigilant and not do these things in excess, and there's always room for discussion around what the threshold should be for what IS excessive and what is NOT excessive, but to boldly proclaim it all to be impossible then drop the mic and walk away is what is truly absurd here. I'm not arguing for pure spending or permanent spending. I'm saying we can shift money from place A to place B, and that we also need to account for future returns. After all, that's what the GOP does when arguing for tax cuts on the rich... I have seen many people (most often conservatives) frame government spending as a pure cost, and I personally feel that's a mistake... a completely unrealistic perspective on how economies operate. Now... This is my opinion, and it's perfectly okay to hold a different one, but I frame these issues instead as investments. What is the expected return? Will this increase jobs? Will this reduce poverty? Will this enhance wellbeing? How will these affects impact revenues and growth? What are the costs of inaction (this last one is especially relevant when rebuilding after hurricanes for not proactively addressing climate change). It's just that this constant and immediate shitting on ideas is so one-sided and so hypocritical from one topic to the next. These calls for detailed payment plans when the topic relates to healthcare or green jobs programs... these defeatist attacks that suggest forcefully that "WE JUST CAN'T DO IT!!1!!2!one!!"... yet at the same time and from the exact same people deafening silence when it comes to giving massive handouts to corporations or adding a few hundred billion for the military or lobbing a few multi-million dollar missiles into the desert overseas somewhere... Nope, not a peep! Nothing. Nada. Zilch... Crickets in an amphitheater. And don't even get me started about when actual payment plans are shared and just get swept aside in strawmen and scaremongering... The core issue here is about what we choose to value. It's the politics that are hard, not the economics, yet it's always the economics used to short-circuit the conversation and prevent us from even talking about these ideas or creatively finding ways to achieve them. Seriously... You're going on about how we cannot afford healthcare, yet today already we pay something like 3x what most other civilized nations do, and we have generally worse outcomes, lower quality care, and we don't even manage to cover everyone. We don't need to invent this from scratch, we just need to look at what's working elsewhere, claim it for our own, and stand up to fight for it in good faith. This is not a problem of budgeting, it's a problem of priorities. Now... AOC is just the newest foil for the right. She's the new bogeyman being used to get people all lathered up and wetting their pants and distracted from reasonable dialogue, but no matter how many times you repeat the word math or call her arrogant or pretend you're taking some arbitrary high-ground... no matter how many times you call her a liar for using poetic license on a single news article and no matter how much you get yourself all worked up into a tizzy and tell us all you're taking your ball and going home... there is just nothing about what she's suggesting that is either impossible or unworkable.
  11. 2 points
    You are, of course, correct. I doubt anyone would claim otherwise, and it seems equally clear to me that neither did a Ten Oz. You both were, however, talking about politicians... Wallace in particular. Admittedly, I too thought you were referencing other politicians when you introduced the idea of people claiming that minorities can’t be racist, and Ten Oz’ request for specific examples made perfect sense. Either way, it seems you shifted the context a bit and were instead making general claims, not claims about politicians. So, while I struggle to see why you felt it was relevant to introduce this into the conversation, at least we’ve all once again found common ground and can completely agree that such claims suggesting minorities cannot be racists are ridiculous garbage. Back on topic... Independent candidates would do better if our system was more parliamentary, but it’s not. Your intentions are good and it’s hard for anyone to disagree with your underlying points, but Ten Oz makes a valid counterpoint when suggesting that you seem to be describing a mythical candidate and a mythical voting base. History is full of examples showing the gaps in your position. This strikes me as one of those book smart versus street smart conversations. Idealized cases from textbooks like the ones you appear to favor are all well and good, but in practice we need to root our ideas in reality and adjust to what actually happens on the ground in practice. Mike Tyson perhapssaid it best. ‘Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.’ Politics is a cage match, not a chess game.
  12. 2 points
    The bigger idea here, JCM, is that you seem a bit... selective... with your application of the "identity politics" label. It's pervasive and everywhere to be seen in politics, yet you focus it as a criticism pretty squarely on one side of the aisle. Perhaps it's unintended and not representative of your true motivations, but it comes across to us readers as a bit hypocritical and even as a blatant double standard. Maybe we can take further discussion of this offline or into another thread, though. This one is about independent candidates running in 2020 and how each of us sees that possibility (if I understood your OP correctly).
  13. 2 points
    I think the OP is not around but I read through the paper a couple of times and have some thoughts. There are two things going on in the paper. One, the OP is making the point that there are striking similarities between infinitesimals as they were used in 17th century math; and the nilsquare infinitesimals of Smooth infinitesimal analysis (SIA). This point of view says that, say, if we went back to the 17th century but knew all about category theory and differential geometry and SIA, we could easily show them how to logically found their subject. They were close in spirit. Ok. That might well be, and I don't agree or disagree, not really knowing enough about SIA and knowing nothing about Leibniz (being more a Newton fan). So for sake of discussion I'll grant the OP that point. But the other thing that's going on is that the OP seems to feel that the history itself supports the idea that they somehow understood this, or that they had a rigorous theory of infinitesimals that was shoved aside by the theory of limits in an act more political than mathematical. That's the second thesis of the paper as I understand it. But the OP presents no historical evidence, none at all, that there was any kind of rigorous theory of infinitesimals floating around at the time. On the contrary, the history is that Newton himself well understood the problem of rigorously defining the limit of the difference quotient. As the 18th century got going, people noticed that the lack of foundational rigor was causing them trouble. They tried to fix the problem. In the first half of the 19th century they got calculus right, and in the second half of the 19th and the first quarter of the 20th, they drilled it all the way down to the empty set and the axioms of ZFC. That is the history as it is written, and there isn't any alternate history that I'm aware of. If there were, I would be most interested to learn about it. The OP makes a historical claim, but doesn't provide any historical evidence. That bothers me. So to sum up: * From our modern category-theoretic and non-LEM and SIA perspective, all of which is math developed only in recent decades, we can reframe 17th century infinitesimals in modern rigorous terms. I accept that point for sake of discussion, though I have some doubts and questions. * But on the historical point, you are just wrong till you show some evidence. The historical record is that the old guys KNEW their theory wasn't rigorous, and that as time went by this caused more and more PROBLEMS, which they eventually SOLVED. They never had a rigorous theory and they never thought they had a rigorous theory. But if they did I'd love the references.
  14. 2 points
    Please don't extrapolate your lack of comprehension to entire scientific community..
  15. 2 points
    My parents already did! Im in town all week, folks.
  16. 2 points
    What is the mechanism for this expansion? It is not a theory if it is based on magic. What is the mechanism for this expansion? What is the mechanism for this expansion? What is the mechanism for this expansion? Why did the expansion start and stop? Was it (a) magic or (b) magic? It’s magic
  17. 2 points
    I couldn't help myself... I made a parody of Trump. Feel free to share! Enjoy!!!
  18. 2 points
  19. 2 points
    And it is a stupid point. There are any number of things that people will use as excuses to trick people. "You have won a prize", "You have an unpaid invoice", "Your tax refund is due", "Meet beautiful girls", "Problem with your order", "Confirm your bank details", "Check your privacy settings". The solution is obviously not to get rid of competitions, online shopping, taxes, dating, shopping, banking or GDPR. Is that your way of saying that you don't have a solution? How exactly do you replace data stored on the client with information stored on the server? Just saying "use HTML tags" isn't much better than saying "magic" without an explanation of how it would work. I am fairly confident that my bank is better than average. But I wouldn't trust them completely, any more than I would any other online service. However, that obviously has absolutely nothing to do with cookies. A website can be secure or insecure without using cookies. A website can steal your personal data without using cookies.
  20. 2 points
    You say this is a problem for materialism and I assume you include naturalism as well. The problem I see is that your comment boils down to an argument from incredulity. It is not an abductive argument because you are appealing to the supernatural. Something that has no evidence in its favour (making it the least likely answer) but is also an unfalsifiable proposition. Magic / miracles can account for anything. More importantly it merely pushes the question back one step. If complexity requires design, then why does not this intelligent author require a creator? By positing without justification that this creator (that usually aligns with one's ancient holy texts) doesn't require creation, or is eternal, then your argument runs foul of Occam's Razor by introducing an unnecessary extra assumption. Nature itself only need be eternal, and we know at least that nature exists.
  21. 2 points
    Defended my thesis in front of the examination board. They were very pleased, found both the thesis and the presentation excellent, appreciated my direct and to-the-point answers to their questions ... Couldn't ask for more! 8 February is verdict day ...
  22. 2 points
    Yes, if it means the death of millions, they should limit their fight. If it means dropping one word from my statement that in no way changes the meaning of what I am saying, then "no" they should continue the fight. I have no idea why you keep throwing up obstacles. If you don't want to help, then don't. But please don't act as if the lack of a perfect solution is the only thing holding you back.
  23. 2 points
    Any variation between them is purely statistical. If you took half of the Caucasian population and compared it to the other half of the Caucasian population. Then the average makeup of the "brain genes" would be different between the two groups. Likewise, if you compared two different "races" like Asians and Caucasians. This is because of genetic differences between basically every human on earth. Yes, it really can be true. No, it's really not that remarkable. This fact was established by simply studying the brains of a multitude of different people and finding no significant difference between them other than individual ones(I.E. some are larger, some are denser, etc)
  24. 2 points
  25. 2 points
    Recommendation: JCMacSwell you should report a post if you think there are ad homs being leveled and everyone should stop talking about it here within thread and derailing everything. Focus on the topic... not on each other. This is not hard. It’s only hard if you force it to be. Don’t go out of your way trying to find things offensive. Don’t go out of your way trying to offend. Let it go and move forward. Treating and viewing people as individuals instead of as members of a gender seems like a good plan. It has the peripheral benefit of all of us agreeing about it.