Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
LasraelLarson

Have you voted? ;)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Papi said:

And I thought Hannity was bad...also, Tucker needs to tell his make up folks to lay off a bit.

well aesthetics & presentation preferences aside (i like Tucker, myself)  FOX news has indeed visited this recent (regurgitated) topic.

& while the Democrat Senator is comfortable saying Russia has hacked the American government, (even i am comfortable saying that) he gets downright weaselly when pinning the Podesta wikileaks on Russia & with good reason...  they don't actually know for certain.

but the malicious lies of fake news:

someone call a fact checker quick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

 

The other ugly side of this is that those that are spiritual/religious get treated as subhumans.

Yes because Christianity has always been a religion of inclusion, acceptance and has never treated whole groups of people like they are "subhuman". You've managed to play the religious victim card.

 

/golfclap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religions have a set of beliefs that dont change, they are set down and people follow them.  When there is evidence what you believe is wrong you just ignore it and say I believe in my religion and this my religion is correct.

Science, the attempt to understand how things work.  You have an idea, you do some tests, others repeat your tests and if everything holds up you have a theory,  If new evidence comes along later that changes a theory or even disproves it then you accept that and move on.

In no way possible is science a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

All Gauss did was provide an example and a proof that it's valid, it's still a theory because it hasn't been promoted to a law 

That's not how science works, laws generally lead to theories, not the other way around. Theories do not get "promoted" to a law, they are not generally the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

A religion doesn't necessarily need a diety to function, as seen by Confucianism.... ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism )

That's where a lot of people trip on the word, and math and science have (and also Utilitarian ism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism ) have replaced religion in a good chunk of the West.  As expected, people don't react well hearing that one for the first time, because they somehow think religion to be a sign of mental deficiency...

The other ugly side of this is that those that are spiritual/religious get treated as subhumans.

The unions in Seattle have really jerked Boeing around, which is why they expanded to South Carolina so they could ditch the union.  IIRC, union shenanigans also delayed the development and production of the Dreamliner ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner ).  Then there's the horror stories of how the unions interact with the government, where the government is so cowed to the union that they won't fire people that need it, which is part of the reason why the government services in the Seattle area are so screwed up.

From what I have seen of the unions, they did what was necessary in the industrial revolution, but have become a hindrance to modern corporations.

Again, you need the context with Trump.

That's not the way mathematical theories work >.>

All Gauss did was provide an example and a proof that it's valid, it's still a theory because it hasn't been promoted to a law - which indicates that there still exists the possibility that it can be disproven.

Some have explained that Trump is upset with Boeing because they gave Clinton lots of money. You back the wrong horse and you may get punished. Not good.

I expect Trump will end up being a mixed bag. Like I said, we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2016 at 2:15 AM, Almagnus1 said:

 

Either way, if someone were to provide a counterexample for one of the fundamental theorems I've mentioned thus far, then the impact on math and science would be nothing short of an apocalypse

No it wouldn't. In the unlikely event that some large number in the infinite amount of numbers was shown to not follow the theory you posted earlier it would certainly be a fascinating discovery, would likely even make the news as well as science journals. It would show us that the theory is true up to a point in an infinite set of numerical data, after that point we need a new theory. Interesting but certainly not apocalyptic. Your computer you are typing your reply on would still continue to work, we would still be able to send satellites in to space, the internet would continue to function etc.... All it would mean is that we need to modify existing theories that base themselves on the one you quoted, science does this all the time, theories change and theories are modified as we make new discoveries, the world doesn't end. Nothing in science is based on faith, just observation, evidence and proof.

Gaining more knowledge to a point that you modify and refine an existing theory or create a brand new one is the ultimate goal of science, it is not an apocalypse. Scientists get excited about the possibility of refining existing or creating new theories, it isn't something to fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

 

But getting back to math... as the entire thing is constructed on deductive and inductive reasoning, if I were to disprove something foundational in mathematics (which is what a true counterexample would do), then there's a whole lot of other stuff that would also be invalidated because the base upon which it was built is also invalid.  Yes, you might be able to replace the theory, but at the same time, the process would cause everything built upon whatever was discredited as false to also be under scrutiny.  Hypothetically speaking, if that were to happen to algebra, for example, that would cause a lot of the mathematical subjects to fall under scrutiny, as they would be impacted by that discovery.

Which would be a good thing, discovering that we have something wrong is just as exciting as finding something new. It could open up whole new branches of science and discovery. Science is all about the pursuit of knowledge, finding you have something wrong increases your knowledge about the subject just as much as a new discovery would. Science, loves to prove itself wrong. 

Scientists once assumed the world was flat and the sun orbited around us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assumption is not faith or belief. It's assumption. 

 

 

Sure you can google some def. of it as belief, but as a Bridge or Poker player you should know the difference. Especially if your assumption is falsified. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2016 at 0:40 PM, Almagnus1 said:

 And Trump may actually have a valid cause for concern if Boeing has been padding their invoices because it's the government.

Of course they are. This whole exercise appears to me to be the start of a renegotiation of the contract.  $4 billion US for two aircraft, and thats before the almost certain cost blowouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, wait, wait, wait... can we go back to this Russia hacking thing? What are they saying happened, that Russia hacked the emails that shone a light on Clinton, meaning Trump was preferable? I might be missing why this is such a problem.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it actually has to be explained how dangerous it is for a foreign government to try and influence the election of another government then people have really lost the plot. I don't care how much you think Hillary didn't deserve to be President (she wasn't my first choice either), something needs to be done about it. I don't care what candidate the hacking favored, it's the hacking itself (and intent) that I'm worried about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Papi said:

I don't care what candidate the hacking favored, it's the hacking itself (and intent) that I'm worried about.

Signed. I don't blame Putin for doing this, financing his right-wing proxies and such - these actions are rational. What worries me is their effectiveness and impunity. 

Liberal democracy cannot survive if the only response is the trumplike rejection of unpleasant truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Doro said:

Wait, wait, wait, wait... can we go back to this Russia hacking thing? What are they saying happened, that Russia hacked the emails that shone a light on Clinton, meaning Trump was preferable? I might be missing why this is such a problem.

From a technical (computer security forensics) perspective the connection to the Russian government is also far from proof. Sure it is a scenario that some might find likely, but you will not find an independent software security researcher out on twitter that agrees that there is definite proof blaming the Russian government.

You will find plenty such people blaming the DNC for their amateurish approach to software security. No problem there. Not that the GOP will have any better security. Any of those naive muppets overriding software security in the name of "getting work done" should be disqualified from high level government jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Doro said:

Wait, wait, wait, wait... can we go back to this Russia hacking thing? What are they saying happened, that Russia hacked the emails that shone a light on Clinton, meaning Trump was preferable? I might be missing why this is such a problem.

THe hacked both sides according to the CIA, but only released stuff that would harm the democrats.  

This is a foreign government trying to influence the outcome of another countries democratic elections.  That is not a good thing

20 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

And as much as it's about the pursuit of knowledge, there's certain baseline assumptions that must be made - like the various constants like the gravitational constant (G) stay constant.  Or that the behavior of the universe itself stays constant so that something like Newtonian physics stays consistent with itself, or that chemical reactions (like electrolysis on H2O will always behave like 2 H2O => 2 H2 + O2) will behave the same way tomorrow as they do today, as they did yesterday.

For that matter, we're making the assumption that everything we know about science is valid for other solar systems and galaxies, despite only having seen light from other parts of the universe - and light that's not necessarily from the same millennia I might add.

 

These are all based on the available and tested evidence.  If new evidence was found to show these assumption where wrong, science would stop using then and use new ones based on the new evidence

Religion makes assumptions based on no evidence, Faith, and continues to adhere to it even when there is evidence that it is false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

THe hacked both sides according to the CIA, but only released stuff that would harm the democrats.  

This is a foreign government trying to influence the outcome of another countries democratic elections.  That is not a good thing

The media sits on news detrimental to their views all the time.

Obama made a speech in London about Brexit in April, urging people to stay in the EU. Where is the line drawn about trying to influence foreign elections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

I've seen mixed info on the Russian hacking stuff...

I've seen stories stating this is (yet another) false news story (most likely being perpetuated by the anti-Trump people because they cannot accept Trump won).

I've seen other stuff where there is probable cause.

And I'm also seeing how wonderful of a job the left did with programming America to have a knee jerk reaction against Trump...  Marx would be proud of our collection of useful idiots.

 

Give me a fucking break.  Name 1 credible news outlet that is actually trying to run the narrative that this a false news story.  Pizzagate (sigh) was a false news story.  This clearly isn't.  You have Republicans and Democrats both saying this isn't about Trump, this isn't a partisan issue, this doesn't change the actual results of the election (because no evidence has been found that anyone hacked the actual voting centers, etc.).  It's about finding out the who, what, why and when so it doesn't happen again--and to take the appropriate action against Russia if need be.

 

 

3 minutes ago, FundinStrongarm said:

The media sits on news detrimental to their views all the time.

Obama made a speech in London about Brexit in April, urging people to stay in the EU. Where is the line drawn about trying to influence foreign elections?

Yes, because an adversarial entity hacking the systems of a foreign government and the President of an allied country making a speech are similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Papi said:

If it actually has to be explained how dangerous it is for a foreign government to try and influence the election of another government then people have really lost the plot. I don't care how much you think Hillary didn't deserve to be President (she wasn't my first choice either), something needs to be done about it. I don't care what candidate the hacking favored, it's the hacking itself (and intent) that I'm worried about.

And if I actually have to explain that there is a big difference between releasing emails from a candidate and actively influencing an election, then the plot's not just lost, it's off in deep space. The media is acting like Russia's been doing way beyond hacking a private email server. It's like they're trying to paint the picture that Trump won through Russians tricking the population, as opposed to enlightening them. If ANY candidate for presidency has skeletons in its closet, then they should be shown to the public, foreign or not. The only thing I see here is that Trump didn't get his stuff leaked, too.

Besides, the US does much worse on a much wider scale all the time. How many wars do they either start or then get involved with in order to decide a foreign nation's leader? Also, let's not forget what Snowden leaked to us all. It's hypocritical for the CIA, of all agencies, to be trying to suggest something nefarious.

 

38 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

THe hacked both sides according to the CIA, but only released stuff that would harm the democrats.  

This is a foreign government trying to influence the outcome of another countries democratic elections.  That is not a good thing

That's one problem to it: they didn't release Trump's stuff. But, as has already been said, it's not as if the media wasn't showing major bias itself with what it was pushing to the US population. If Russia did hack the Podesta shit, then all that happened was that it went on WikiLeaks where people could go look, as opposed to the media constantly shoving their own stuff on TV.

But this isn't the only time a foreign government has tried to influence elections. Think of all the things said by other nations during Brexit. Even Farage turned up to a Trump rally to use his position to back him for presidency. It doesn't really matter what nations try to influence an election when it comes to information, what matters is whether the people are informed or not. Right now, the leftist media is saying that it's somehow a preferable thing to have a nation of ignorant voters, and no one else should try to change that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Ok, so which of the following assumptions is there evidence against:

The question should be which is there evidence FOR. Science has evidence for its assumptions. Faith doesn't. It's why it's faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

[Reformatted for clarity:]

Christianity does not function if you do not make the assumption:

  • That God exists
  • The Trinity exists [as God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit]
  • Jesus was a divine being (ie: not an average dude).

Everything else in Christianity comes from those baseline assumptions.  If any of these assumptions are not true, then the entire thing falls apart.

You start with the null hypothesis that God does not exist and then you try to find evidence that he does.  You cant prove a negative.

As for your assumptions there is no testable verifiable evidence for the assumptions.  They are based upon Faith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Papi said:

If it actually has to be explained how dangerous it is for a foreign government to try and influence the election of another government then people have really lost the plot. I don't care how much you think Hillary didn't deserve to be President (she wasn't my first choice either), something needs to be done about it. I don't care what candidate the hacking favored, it's the hacking itself (and intent) that I'm worried about.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Doro said:

1. Besides, the US does much worse on a much wider scale all the time. How many wars do they either start or then get involved with in order to decide a foreign nation's leader? Also, let's not forget what Snowden leaked to us all. It's hypocritical for the CIA, of all agencies, to be trying to suggest something nefarious.

2. But, as has already been said, it's not as if the media wasn't showing major bias itself with what it was pushing to the US population. If Russia did hack the Podesta shit, then all that happened was that it went on WikiLeaks where people could go look, as opposed to the media constantly shoving their own stuff on TV.

3. It doesn't really matter what nations try to influence an election when it comes to information, what matters is whether the people are informed or not. 

4. The only thing I see here is that Trump didn't get his stuff leaked, too.

1. If that is the case, then all the major players in the world should never call out any country for any shady shit, because they've all done it.  You're pretty much saying the CIA shouldn't be doing it's job.

2. The media is trying to connect the dots.  Maybe they are being overzealous because they gave Trump a free ride during the primaries (no other candidate across the board got the free air time and continuous exposure he did) and maybe they feel somewhat responsible for the fact (indirectly) that he won the election.  But it's not like certain flags aren't there.  Trump has had to let a member of his senior staff go because of his financial ties to Russia.  That's not speculation, or false news.  That's a simple fact.  

3. It does matter. Intent.  Motive. Do we honestly think Russia did this out of the kindness of their heart, to be champions of unlimited information and keep the general public informed?  Have you been to Russia lately??  It most certainly does matter.

4. And you don't think it's a valid question to wonder why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Papi said:

1. If that is the case, then all the major players in the world should never call out any country for any shady shit, because they've all done it.  You're pretty much saying the CIA shouldn't be doing it's job.

2. The media is trying to connect the dots.  Maybe they are being overzealous because they gave Trump a free ride during the primaries (no other candidate across the board got the free air time and continuous exposure he did) and maybe they feel somewhat responsible for the fact (indirectly) that he won the election.  But it's not like certain flags aren't there.  Trump has had to let a member of his senior staff go because of his financial ties to Russia.  That's not speculation, or false news.  That's a simple fact.  

3. It does matter. Intent.  Motive. Do we honestly think Russia did this out of the kindness of their heart, to be champions of unlimited information and keep the general public informed?  Have you been to Russia lately??  It most certainly does matter.

4. And you don't think it's a valid question to wonder why?

1. No, I'm saying the CIA is wasting its time investigating something trivial as if it's worse than anything they've done themselves. When you're a nation that's been spying on the private lives of people all around the world, destabilizing entire regions for political gain, and having your leader make speeches about what other nations should be voting, it's laughable to sit around condemning the hacking of a single private server.

2. You're missing what I'm saying. The media was doing its best to discredit Trump and promote Clinton. It continues to do this. And yet after all they've done to try to influence the election, they're now trying to say the leak of a private server did much more than they did, so much so that it resulted in Trump winning. It's hypocrisy.

3. I don't care if Russia had some group do it out of their own personal interest. Information is information, and it should be open to people. I'm against this media position that educating the voting population was a bad thing, and something akin to Russia fixing votes (which is the impression they're giving about it all).

4. No. We already know why. We also already know it's irrelevant and just another attempt at the leftist media to do more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

The same can be said about much of philosophy for that matter.

Yeah, but philosophy is just thinking about stuff. Science and religion make claims about reality, where only science has evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

 

Wait, did you just argue for the existence of God?  If I'm understanding you correctly you just said you can't prove what you're trying to prove.

 

No.  I said we start from the point of view that there is no God.  No can we find evidence for God, no we cant so was say God does not exist.  Should evidence come to light then we would say God does exits.  This is how science works.

 

11 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

So where did the particle that created the universe, the one that was the big bang come from?  Why did it explode?

Firstly the Big Bang Theory does not actually say there was an explosion.  It is badly named.

Secondly, we dont know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Doro said:

1. No, I'm saying the CIA is wasting its time investigating something trivial as if it's worse than anything they've done themselves. When you're a nation that's been spying on the private lives of people all around the world, destabilizing entire regions for political gain, and having your leader make speeches about what other nations should be voting, it's laughable to sit around condemning the hacking of a single private server.

2. You're missing what I'm saying. The media was doing its best to discredit Trump and promote Clinton. It continues to do this. And yet after all they've done to try to influence the election, they're now trying to say the leak of a private server did much more than they did, so much so that it resulted in Trump winning. It's hypocrisy.

3. I don't care if Russia had some group do it out of their own personal interest. Information is information, and it should be open to people. I'm against this media position that educating the voting population was a bad thing, and something akin to Russia fixing votes (which is the impression they're giving about it all).

4. No. We already know why. We also already know it's irrelevant and just another attempt at the leftist media to do more of the same.

1. Investigating a breach from a adversarial country is never a waste of time.  It's the CIA's job.  Irregardless of what we may or may not have done in the past and will do in the future, investigating how this actually happened will help prevent it from happening in the future.  It's the exact opposite of trivial. I'm not quire sure why that point is getting lost here.

2. The media, for the most part, simply quotes Trump. Or captures what he tweets.  That alone is enough to "discredit" him.  The media doesn't have to reach very far to find something negative about him.  But judging from your opinion of the media (not sure who exactly you are referring to, "media" is quite broad), it doesn't matter at this point. 

3. Well, I do care.  Very much so.  And the fact that this investigation has received bi-partisan support speaks volumes. To me, it seems you're biased against the media so I think you're reading into it.  Again, majority of the news outlets I've seen lead with the fact that regardless of the information that comes about as a result of the investigation, the election results stand.

4. We do?  Enlighten me...

The shit just gets deeper and deeper:  http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-picks-former-texas-gov-rick-perry-as-energy-secretary-1481641430

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...