|
quote:How long would the terrorists last had there been armed civilians (whether they are cops, military or just gun-owners)? Just as long if not longer, from the current sound of things. Are they still saying one of the terrorists got shot dead, though? Because, I mean, that points pretty strongly to the presence of armed police. 
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
I get unreasonably irritated when people use 'government' as a mass noun. It seems like a pretty universal indication of uninformed garbage opinions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
theshim posted:Since we're on the downswing of the Jrodefeld Cycle, the thread's been quiet. Time to give it an infusion of That One Guy I Know On Facebook Someone should quietly remind him that the favorite tool of terrorists worldwide is bombs, not guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
theshim posted:Since we're on the downswing of the Jrodefeld Cycle, the thread's been quiet. Time to give it an infusion of That One Guy I Know On Facebook The proper response to people like that is the repeated application of this image: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
guess who is back in his other lovely thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Hey guys, did you know that modern-day slavery as practiced in Qatar and the UAE is purely a personal liberty-matter and has no bearing whatsoever on how economically free a country is? 'Cause I sure as hell didn't, until JRod laid that little truth bomb on us!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
It's not slavery, it's voluntarily involuntary servitude performed in a rights-respecting manner. Do you even freedom, bro?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Look, I paid for your wife's broken arm, and you owe me a lot of money for that. What do you mean, you don't own anything you can give me to pay off the debt? You own yourself, don't you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
"Do you want to die of starvation or be fed poo poo while being paid breadcrumbs also I get to treat you like a pet and abuse you?" He can choose either choice, duh
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:guess who is back in his other lovely thread Is it...is it me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Is it...is it me? It's all of us. We are all, individually, the worst poster on the forums. Come friend, wallow in the poo poo post with us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
God this jrodefeld is dumb
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:God this jrodefeld is dumb Hmm, not bad, but can you express this in at least five lengthy paragraphs and an out-of-context citation that actually demonstrates the exact opposite of your intended point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:05
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:God this jrodefeld is dumb Welcome to the party.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:God this jrodefeld is dumb He'd better hurry; Al-Shabaab is getting beat back, and Somalia is now less unstable than Syria and Yemen, and the Somalian Government actually exists as an entity now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
whatching people debate jrod is tedious. he never ever acknowledges when he's wrong, ever
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:whatching people debate jrod is tedious. Its the continuous Goal Post shift of Libertarianism
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:whatching people debate jrod is tedious. He said recently that he's been wrong about things. I take that as an admission that he's always wrong about everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
He told us he's never hosed a watermelon, and then started saying he's been wrong about things he's told us. Makes u think
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:He said recently that he's been wrong about things. I take that as an admission that he's always wrong about everything. It seems like he is just admitting that he phrased something poorly more than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:whatching people debate jrod is tedious. But really, if he was in the habit of admitting when he was wrong, he'd have stopped being a libertarian by now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Changing your mind on anything ever is for chumps.Human Action posted:Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events. Without them we should not be able to see in the course of events anything else than kaleidoscopic change and chaotic muddle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Changing your mind on anything ever is for chumps. That's perfectly reasonable until you realize that they're basically relying on you not noticing this sentence: quote:It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. ...and taking its conclusions to apply to reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:"Without them we should not be able to see in the course of events anything else than kaleidoscopic change and chaotic muddle." i.e, reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:i.e, reality. Nah, physics for example is able to show that all that chaos and change is following simple, elegant rules. It's just that those rules were determined by physicists looking at reality instead of looking up their own asses. Even if you restrict yourself to the "realm of human action," there's the fields of psychology and sociology and behavioral economics all doing research on how people behave, and they're able to actually get results beyond "wow, this is all confusing, I guess Humans just Act!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
I'm not averse to the idea of a deterministic universe, I'm just rather skeptical of any ideological outlook that purports to bring the entire fabric of existence into focus simply by adopting it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not averse to the idea of a deterministic universe, I'm just rather skeptical of any ideological outlook that purports to bring the entire fabric of existence into focus simply by adopting it. Libertarianism is NOT a philosophy mind you, it's a loving religion disguised as a philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not averse to the idea of a deterministic universe, I'm just rather skeptical of any ideological outlook that purports to bring the entire fabric of existence into focus simply by adopting it. Nothing is random. Absolutely nothing. Everything follows a set of rules. That's why there are fancy things like "math" and "science." We're figuring out those rules. They're unfathomably complex but once we figure out the equations we can tinker with the input to get the output we want. Libertarianism decides what output it wants and designs equations from scratch that make every possible input lead to the output they want. Mind you the equations are always nebulous at best and change nonstop to fit whatever they're talking about right now. The most common argument is "this is true because I believe it is." Actual reality is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Nothing is random. Absolutely nothing. What?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
There's things that are effectively random, but he's arguing that we don't know the cause for those yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Nothing is random. Absolutely nothing. Everything follows a set of rules. That's why there are fancy things like "math" and "science." We're figuring out those rules. They're unfathomably complex but once we figure out the equations we can tinker with the input to get the output we want. Our best understanding of some things is that they are actually, truly random. For instance, there's not really a good reason to believe that radioactive decay is a deterministic process. Lack of proof of true randomness is not the same as proof of determinism
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:What? The universe follows rules. The patterns my be absurdly complex and unfathomable to our ape brains but they're there. What seems random to us is a bunch of external factors causing something to happen. It might be unpredictable but it isn't random.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The universe follows rules. The patterns my be absurdly complex and unfathomable to our ape brains but they're there. What seems random to us is a bunch of external factors causing something to happen. It might be unpredictable but it isn't random. There are rules, yes, but the rules include some form of randomness - this has been experimentally demonstrated : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The universe follows rules. The patterns my be absurdly complex and unfathomable to our ape brains but they're there. What seems random to us is a bunch of external factors causing something to happen. It might be unpredictable but it isn't random. Why does everything in the universe have to be deterministic? I mean at this level we have solidly left the realm of science and are definitely just philosophizing, but why can't the rules that the universe follows include some level of randomness?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why does everything in the universe have to be deterministic? Sure, you can axe any of them and things still work, but each possibility has its drawbacks. Accept some degree of non-local interaction and everything makes sense but controlled observation becomes effectively impossible.
[/BS] Oh, and I guess there's the 4th possibility. All 3 traits are absolute, but we've been too dumb to make them all jive. The best possibility really, but team "We Suck" doesn't seem to get much support. Reicere fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why does everything in the universe have to be deterministic? I mean at this level we have solidly left the realm of science and are definitely just philosophizing, but why can't the rules that the universe follows include some level of randomness? No, everything is maths
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why does everything in the universe have to be deterministic? I mean at this level we have solidly left the realm of science and are definitely just philosophizing, but why can't the rules that the universe follows include some level of randomness? Nothing we've discovered so far is provably random, rather than being the result of deterministic rules that we simply can't comprehend yet. Especially since so many things we used to think were totally random turned out to be deterministic as knowledge and tools improved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why does everything in the universe have to be deterministic? I mean at this level we have solidly left the realm of science and are definitely just philosophizing, but why can't the rules that the universe follows include some level of randomness? My understanding of it has to do with things like the laws of thermodynamics; in particular the second one. The short of it is "any level of entropy in a closed system will increase over time and cause catastrophic failure eventually." Any minute level of randomness fucks up everything. As science has peeled back the layers of the universe bit by bit it has found that seemingly random things weren't. The universe is a staggeringly huge system that is incomprehensibly complex but even when it cheats and breaks its own rules it does it in predictable ways. Plus as our understanding gets better we keep running into places where the equations we figured out turned out to be more complex than we thought. There were cases of "well this works 99.99% of the time" only to find out that it works 99.99999% of the time if we add one more variable that barely affects it at all under normal circumstances. Which is one reason a lot of people think science is full of poo poo; we've gotten into the realm of things that are extremely difficult to observe like complex math, quantum theory, and chaos theory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Nothing we've discovered so far is provably random, rather than being the result of deterministic rules that we simply can't comprehend yet. Especially since so many things we used to think were totally random turned out to be deterministic as knowledge and tools improved. Quantum physics is as close to proven random as it is possible to do. Hidden information just adds complication for no real gain in predictive power or understanding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Nothing we've discovered so far is provably random, rather than being the result of deterministic rules that we simply can't comprehend yet. To the best of our understanding, radioactive decay is provably random, and so are many other processes. I won't discount the possibility of discovering a deterministic process governing radioactive decay, but there's no guarantee of that happening; it might be (and probably is) truly random. And using your same line of reasoning (basically none at all), I could claim that any number of deterministic processes are simply the result of random processes that we simply can't comprehend yet. It's possible that everything really is deterministic, but why must this be the case? I don't find the argument of "many things we once thought were random actually weren't" to be particularly convincing (because it's ahistorical for a lot of the traditional examples, but even if it was totally accurate you'd still be using a logical fallacy) Twerkteam Pizza posted:No, everything is maths I know you're being facetious, but I'd like to mention that randomness is maths ToxicSlurpee posted:My understanding of it has to do with things like the laws of thermodynamics; in particular the second one. The short of it is "any level of entropy in a closed system will increase over time and cause catastrophic failure eventually." Any minute level of randomness fucks up everything. As science has peeled back the layers of the universe bit by bit it has found that seemingly random things weren't. That isn't a convincing argument. An atom in a box has some probability of decaying, and to our knowledge this is a fully random process. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't change that. ToxicSlurpee posted:The universe is a staggeringly huge system that is incomprehensibly complex but even when it cheats and breaks its own rules it does it in predictable ways. Plus as our understanding gets better we keep running into places where the equations we figured out turned out to be more complex than we thought. There were cases of "well this works 99.99% of the time" only to find out that it works 99.99999% of the time if we add one more variable that barely affects it at all under normal circumstances. Which is one reason a lot of people think science is full of poo poo; we've gotten into the realm of things that are extremely difficult to observe like complex math, quantum theory, and chaos theory. This isn't really a convincing argument, either; see my reply to fishmech. Remember, your claim is that all physical processes must be deterministic. The incredible complexity of the universe doesn't prove that, nor does the revelation that some "random" processes were later discovered to be deterministic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 07:47
|
|