America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 22 months ago by bgz. 84 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
We don't live in the United States anymore
delta1 Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Mike3316 wrote:
Really Ben???? Without getting into the morality of abortion - you think the SCOTUS is going to "end democracy" (we won't talk about the fact that we DON'T live in a democracy) by overturing a poorly reasoned 50 yr old case (ask ANYONE that's ever gone to lawschool - they'll tell you) and turning the issue back to the states for the people to VOTE on? Hell - even Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that Roe was bad law! The entire point of the excercise that is the United States is the people voting - NOT some unelected bureaucrat dictating laws at us. I disagree with you entirely. I do not believe "the court needs to go". In fact - their Roe decision was EXACTLY the correct thing to do. If you don't like it - get your legislature to pass a law codifying abortion. The courts should NOT be making that decision.




exactly...but now we have the right, a numerical minority, flexing its powers where it can and putting up obstacles to subvert stuff the left wants to do, and the minority rejoices...

things were different a few years back before the majority was overtaken, and those on the right were unhappy, threatening Civil War, violence and such nonsense...so far, there hasn't been that sort of reaction from the left...just the usual ineffective hand-wringing that seems to energize the right...

we thought that voting counted, as Mike suggested in his post...we believed it...but life is more complicated and the right has figured out how to undermine voting...

history has shown that events and power are cyclical...we shall see...in the meantime, I won't begrudge the celebrations on the right...
bgz Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Mike3316 wrote:
Really Ben???? Without getting into the morality of abortion - you think the SCOTUS is going to "end democracy" (we won't talk about the fact that we DON'T live in a democracy) by overturing a poorly reasoned 50 yr old case (ask ANYONE that's ever gone to lawschool - they'll tell you) and turning the issue back to the states for the people to VOTE on? Hell - even Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that Roe was bad law! The entire point of the excercise that is the United States is the people voting - NOT some unelected bureaucrat dictating laws at us. I disagree with you entirely. I do not believe "the court needs to go". In fact - their Roe decision was EXACTLY the correct thing to do. If you don't like it - get your legislature to pass a law codifying abortion. The courts should NOT be making that decision.


Didn't see you responded to me... do I know you?

If it's not the purpose of the supreme court to make rulings where rulings are said to set precedent, then why even have a SUPREME COURT...

Why even have it if the next generation is going to come in and sh*t all over what the previous generation did.

Yo, Robert... RFenst... he said ask anyone that has gone to "lawschool" (keep in mind he didn't say ask someone with a law degree, just ask someone that went to law school).

Anyway, I'm asking... wait, I'm trying to figure out what you wanted me to ask... holy sh*t this Mike guy write like a angry bad kid that got kicked out of school in the 7th grade.

Never mind Robert... I'm not going to ask...

Ok... here's the thing... here's why we need laws.

Sh*t heads exist... they really really do... without the laws, sh*theads would be doing sh*thead things...

You know how we know this?

Because laws became what they were in the first place because of sh*theads... doing sh*thead things.

I'm guessing you approve of sh*theads though... you seem like the type.
delta1 Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
but some sh*theads, rich and powerful ones, can get away with breaking the laws, and are even encouraged by folks on the right to do so...it's like they're expected to...
bgz Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I guess that would imply the ones rooting them on are nothing but sh*theads themselves.

Damn philosophy and logic.


Edit:

Oh no... this is going to invite the absolute logic guy...

He be like... do you believe in logic? ... ??? ... Profit!

Wait, that's the underpants gnomes.
frankj1 Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
bgz wrote:
I guess that would imply the ones rooting them on are nothing but sh*theads themselves.

Damn philosophy and logic.


Edit:

Oh no... this is going to invite the absolute logic guy...

He be like... do you believe in logic? ... ??? ... Profit!

Wait, that's the underpants gnomes.

Oy.
Are we talking about underpants briefs or legal briefs?
I got lost...
bgz Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
frankj1 wrote:
Oy.
Are we talking about underpants briefs or legal briefs?
I got lost...


Here you go!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ih_TQWqCA

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/profit
Sunoverbeach Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,586
Is google a woman? Because it won't let you finish your sentence without coming up with other suggestions.
delta1 Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
the left should embark on a re-population plan to encourage more mods and libs to move to states like Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina, red states with slim margins...

this will reduce the advantages of small states to exert over-sized influence in national elections and could bring back a more equitable sense of "One man - one vote"
HockeyDad Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
delta1 wrote:
the left should embark on a re-population plan to encourage more mods and libs to move to states like Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina, red states with slim margins...

this will reduce the advantages of small states to exert over-sized influence in national elections and could bring back a more equitable sense of "One man - one vote"



To solidify a one party dictatorship?
BuckyB93 Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,111
It works in CA so it must be the way to go.... wait... CA us a $hit hole... nevermind
Stogie1020 Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 5,231
delta1 wrote:
the left should embark on a re-population plan to encourage more mods and libs to move to states like Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina, red states with slim margins...

this will reduce the advantages of small states to exert over-sized influence in national elections and could bring back a more equitable sense of "One man - one vote"


That's pretty much exactly why we have an electoral college. Just saying.
HockeyDad Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
Stogie1020 wrote:
[/b]

That's pretty much exactly why we have an electoral college. Just saying.


The Democrats are targeting the electoral college, the Supreme Court, the 2nd amendment….I’m not sure how much of the constitution they actually want to keep. Kinda looks like just the part about dismemberment of black and brown unborn is what they want.
Dg west deptford Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,836
bgz wrote:
Oh no, not this sh*t again.

Absolutely DG... I believe in using logic!

... just not that absolute logic sh*t or what ever you call it.


Ok Ben, tell me more about the logic you believe in

Is logic universal or up to the individual?



bgz Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Dg west deptford wrote:
Ok Ben, tell me more about the logic you believe in

Is logic universal or up to the individual?



Your question implies you don't understand what logic is.

Think of logic as an algorithmic process of using an axiomatic set of rules to build upon coming up with new rules based off your existing set of rules.

Think of truth as a function to which you pass your list of axioms to, and you pass your question to, and from those rules, it will product a true or false answer or will run forever.

Ok?

Great...

Let's move on.

The problem with the model is that it can be vague to those who don't really understand the model...

So it's possible to pass axioms to the function that are not fundamentally true!

Which will skew your answers and your perspective of the world.

How do we know which axioms are true?

WE TEST THEM!!!

Yes... oh, to question the ancients, so many have died at the stake for such sacrilege.

Anyway... we can't ignore the quantum. It doesn't jive with old school "logic".

You need a new schtick.
Speyside2 Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,304
^ Interesting, I am fully aware of what you are describing. I start with a supposition and use gated logic. Your way is certainly faster. I wonder if the choice is based on math preference. Having solely worked in cellular physiology, I came to always use that model.
rfenst Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
Ben, I took logic1 and Logic2 at the University of Michigan. It was 100% symbolic set theory. The only time it wasn't was when someone didn't get it- and then the professor would used words (in the symbolic format) to show that the premise(s) undisputedly lead to the conclusion. We never argued any issues in class. That isn't what it was about.. Very interesting. No regrets here.

Also, made both my kids take logic early in college and they both think it was one of the most important analytical courses they regularly still use to succeed in the "real world."

For example, when my son is at work and he hears an argument he doesn't believe leads to the proper conclusion. He sometimes maps the argument out in symbols and then converts it analogous words to disprove management's conclusion from the stated premise(s), is wrong.
frankj1 Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
I like turtles.


MJ Toal
DrafterX Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
frankj1 wrote:
I like to kick turtles.


MJ Toal



OhMyGod
delta1 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
^hey you...they're waiting for you at the PIB...

http://www.cigarbid.com/.../620117/PIBWants-2012-v3
frankj1 Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
DrafterX wrote:
OhMyGod

there oughta be a law!
bgz Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
rfenst wrote:
Ben, I took logic1 and Logic2 at the University of Michigan. It was 100% symbolic set theory. The only time it wasn't was when someone didn't get it- and then the professor would used words (in the symbolic format) to show that the premise(s) undisputedly lead to the conclusion. We never argued any issues in class. That isn't what it was about.. Very interesting. No regrets here.

Also, made both my kids take logic early in college and they both think it was one of the most important analytical courses they regularly still use to succeed in the "real world."

For example, when my son is at work and he hears an argument he doesn't believe leads to the proper conclusion. He sometimes maps the argument out in symbols and then converts it analogous words to disprove management's conclusion from the stated premise(s), is wrong.



Very good! I only took one logic class (philosophy). So my analogy was more from a programmer's perpective.

I hear you on a wrong premise... but what happens when your axioms are wrong. Would you believe they were wrong if there was experimental evidence to the contrary?

If you build a premise upon wrong axioms... how would you know if it was true or not?

That's more the concept I'm arguing here without getting into it too deep. and I'm trying to argue it to someone who shouldn't be going at anyone with "logic".

For instance... he's insistant on a universal truth when we know from experiments... it's simply not true.

There is no universal concept of now (fact)

What happens next can only be described with probability densities at the quantum level (fact)

And it's possible for non local systems to measure different facts from a different system (recently proven).

Contrary to what Bucky says... you don't have to be a working high energy particle phd candidate or greater physicist to understand the concepts of this stuff... he would have everyone believe that because the quantum doesn't jive with his beliefs.

You don't even need to know math to understand the general concepts (though it helps).

Just look up the quantum eraser...

If that's not enough to make you go wtf, I don't know what will.

I apologize in advance if anyone gets stuck in the rabbit hole.

Again... Bucky is wrong... you can be a complete dumb sh*t and still appreciate this stuff... please, look it up.
burning_sticks Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 08-17-2020
Posts: 152
bgz wrote:
I've said the problem... but the problem don't want to hear it.

We have way too many stupid people in this country.

So what's the problem... is the problem don't know they're the problem.


Where did the stupid people come from? Many are from a failed public education system promoted and dictated too by the Federal Department of Education. Most of the rest are college graduates, trained under a socialists' agenda.
frankj1 Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
where did the smart peoples come from?
How could so many have gone through the education process and come out differently?

Is it possible there are more than one way/your way to view things?

Seems like about half the country agrees with you and the same percent agree with me...

the best way to debate or discuss differences is to understand the opposing point of view, not to shut down.
HockeyDad Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
frankj1 wrote:
where did the smart peoples come from?
How could so many have gone through the education process and come out differently?


Prolly private schools where they didn’t get participation trophies.
frankj1 Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
HockeyDad wrote:
Prolly private schools where they didn’t get participation trophies.

gotta be pretty uncoordinated to get cut from T-ball
tailgater Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
where did the smart peoples come from?
How could so many have gone through the education process and come out differently?

Is it possible there are more than one way/your way to view things?

Seems like about half the country agrees with you and the same percent agree with me...

the best way to debate or discuss differences is to understand the opposing point of view, not to shut down.


So I shouldn't worry if 90% of the people are stoopid. Because the other half is smart.

Got it.

Dg west deptford Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,836
bgz wrote:
Your question implies you don't understand what logic is.

Think of logic as an algorithmic process of using an axiomatic set of rules to build upon coming up with new rules based off your existing set of rules.

Think of truth as a function to which you pass your list of axioms to, and you pass your question to, and from those rules, it will product a true or false answer or will run forever.

Ok?


Are contradictions invalid only where you are, and only because you say they are, or is this universally true?

We can move on though Ben


It's where you forsake knowledge by saying "you could be wrong about everything you think you know"

You don't even know if existence exists & your trying to figure out when now is?

Now before you reply ask yourself if your reply is absolutely true
frankj1 Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
So I shouldn't worry if 90% of the people are stoopid. Because the other half is smart.

Got it.


nope, don't worry.
but you should have asked the guy I replied to, not me.
He's the one gud wif numbahs.
bgz Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Dg west deptford wrote:
Are contradictions invalid only where you are, and only because you say they are, or is this universally true?

We can move on though Ben


It's where you forsake knowledge by saying "you could be wrong about everything you think you know"

You don't even know if existence exists & your trying to figure out when now is?

Now before you reply ask yourself if your reply is absolutely true


Do you know if your reality really exists?

How do you know you're not just a figment of my imagination? (I don't think it works the other way).

Are you absolutely sure what ever you believe is the absolute truth?

How do you know the your hypothesis is right?

How do you know Einstein's theory was wrong (you've claimed several times relativity is wrong)?

How do you know Schrödinger's theory was wrong(invalidated any notion of absolute truth)?

How do you know that Penrose's and Hawking's theories were wrong?

How do you know that all the great mathematicians current, past and undoubtedly future... are/were and will be all wrong?

Because you can see the sun rise? Because you see the sky is blue? Because you see the Earth is flat? Logic?
Dg west deptford Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,836
In my best Monty Python voice

Wouldn't you like to know

Of course I never said anything about e=mc2 being wrong or any of the other strawman you're propping up in a weak & cowardly attempt to avoid the Truth.

That according to your worldview -

you could be wrong about everything you think you know

So whenever you make any knowledge claim whatsoever you borrow from my worldview to do so.
bgz Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Dg west deptford wrote:
In my best Monty Python voice

Wouldn't you like to know

Of course I never said anything about e=mc2 being wrong or any of the other strawman you're propping up in a weak & cowardly attempt to avoid the Truth.

That according to your worldview -

you could be wrong about everything you think you know

So whenever you make any knowledge claim whatsoever you borrow from my worldview to do so.


What "knowledge" do I need to borrow from your worldview exactly?

And for what purpose would I need this "knowledge"?

For the record... there's nothing wrong with being wrong. There's nothing wrong with saying, hey... these are the models that best match observational data... this is our most accurate representation of reality there is.

You act like that's a weakness...

And you act like having thin skin and throwing tantrums is strength...

Welcome to bizarro world.
frankj1 Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
bgz wrote:
What "knowledge" do I need to borrow from your worldview exactly?


I think bourbon might level the playing field.
He's on a bender...
frankj1 Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
again.
bgz Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Well, if I'm going to have bourbon, not going to be posting on the boards, lol.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12