So you aren't willing to demonstrate the actual mathematics behind your "mathematically virtually-guarantee" claim. But we should take your word for it as a self-claimed mathematician.
Honestly, guys, I would love to witness such a thing. I firmly believe in the Drake equation. I virtually guarantee you there's "something" out there. I also mathematically virtually-guarantee you (I'm a mathematician, certainty is a big word) that we'll never be in the same time/space/evolution that we'd ever be able to communicate usefully.
Where's your mathematical analysis, then, that resolves the Fermi paradox?
Yes, somebody who sees through your "ignorant jackass" approach to arguing.
I'm quite confident after this exchange that it's the latter.
Point blank simple question, answer it: Did riots happen as a result of the false accusation in the Michael Brown shooting?
For one my business loses money because the church's political influence won't allow us to trade on certain days of the year.
Oh, you poor soul. Maybe you can find a "progressive" reason for that? After all, lots of religious dogma is based on societal good.
See how that works? Now your turn...
I'm not playing your stupid game. I don't have to be personally affected by an event to be concerned by it, just like you have no personal reason to be commenting on this Slashdot sorry. See how that works?
And now we're back again to the question which you tried to dodge: "So are you saying all the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud are just the collective imagination of "the news"??"
but we are yet to hear how any of things have created an actual real problem for you
Why do I have to personally experience the problem to be concerned by it? What have the religious people personally done to you that prompted your inquiry? Point on the doll where the priest touched you.
You didn't explain anything. You said, "So the system works. What was your problem again?" I pointed out the real-world problems generated by the "progressive" idiots, and you mumbled something about not personally believing headlines. Umm, ok?
This is what makes talking to dishonest ideologues so painful. They crank up the smog machine and make non-nonsensical replies, and fill in the blanks with insults.
No shit, but there's a difference between accusing somebody of a single-source bias and generically bashing all "news", retard.
Well you're wrong again. What do you owe me?
A gold sticker for being such a special boy? You did reference an article which can be categorized as news, though it's also a poll, which would qualify as research. So enjoy your gold star, special boy.
The difference is dummy, I didn't just read the headline and believe it in face value
Neither did I, or I'd just be another "progressive" idiot, dummy. But we've established you follow the news. So are you saying all the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud are just the collective imagination of "the news"??
I'd mirror your most X person on Slashdot I've ever argued with comment, but your kind of intellectual dishonesty is not unusual.
No, first it was "the news" (widespread dismissal), then it was "Fox News" (accusation of single-source blindness), then it was back to "the news" after I pointed out yet again that I pull from a variety of sources.
No if you could read, i asked that you give us all something more substantial than "the news".
We've been over this. It's just a lazy way for you to dismiss anything that threatens your preconceived notions. And what the news chooses to report and the narrative they try to frame is a major part of the "progressive" politicking going on that has me worried.
By the way, I noticed you left out the part about, "which is quite a hypocritical position to take given that you're commenting on a sensational news story on Slashdot, 'How San Francisco Hazed a Tech Bro'." You follow the news just like anybody else, and I'm willing to bet you've used them as sources in arguments before.
Oh I'm familiar with them, I just wanted to understand which specific detail concerns you.
Oh, really? Then if you're familiar with them (I wonder how, since, you know, "the news"), you should also be familiar with the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud that went along with the false accusations hyped up by "progressives".
I'm not across this organisation, but there must be millions of similar activist groups all across America, all with varying degrees of extreme views. Do you let all of them affect your opinion?
Do you let all crazy religious groups affect your opinion? Why are you worried about religion when you want to move? The fact is the media and politicians are pandering to "progressive" nutters, with real-world consequences.
I reject that there is no choice. People put up with all kinds of bullshit they don't like about their life or restraints on their desires. For example, if somebody is attracted to children that doesn't mean they are free to act on their impulses.
You sound ridiculous, vacillating from one defense to another.
Burden, proof, claimant.
It's not a problem to do so, but you made it clear from the start that you wanted to dismiss anything that didn't fit your political leanings as "news", which is quite a hypocritical position to take given that you're commenting on a sensational news story on Slashdot, "How San Francisco Hazed a Tech Bro".
I gave you concrete examples of stories that achieved widespread and prolonged news coverage. I would expect somebody commenting on American politics to be familiar with them, or if not, to do a little fucking research on your own before dismissing it out of hand.
You could start by reading the Wikipedia page, which is backed up by references. The short version is that a black guy got shot by a cop, there was an outcry that it was racist police brutality, and it made national news.
Brown was called "a gentle giant". Then the police released video footage of Brown robbing a convenience store shortly before the incident, physically shoving the clerk when he confronted him. Idiots like John Oliver then say this video is "irrelevant", like it wouldn't pertain at all to his character or state of mind. The officer was eventually cleared, both by local authorities and a federal investigation, with witness testimony matching forensic evidence that backed up the officer's account. And yet this Brown thug is still a poster child for Black Lives Matter. Oh, and if you use the word "thug" you're racist.
Get real. Comments that go against the agenda are nuked for any or no reason beyond that they go against the agenda. The standard you're applying is only applied to one side of a position. One thing you can say about Slashdot, your comment may be moderated to the basement by groupthink, but at least it's there for people looking.
So now you've moved back from bashing "Fox News" to "the news". A simple search will show a great number of sources. But you want to bury your head in the sand, and pretend nothing is going on that isn't happening to you personally.
Dude, my reality is a wide variety of sources, from liberal to conservative, and I don't reflexively dismiss a source out of ideology. Come back when you're willing to take your blinkers off.
Black Lives Matter has a lot of legitimate points, but what happened to Michael Brown was not one of them. It's unpleasantly common for police to kill people who aren't actually threatening anyone and get away with it, particularly when the victims are blacks. We're starting to see some action on that, including the bypassing of grand juries and the drive for body cams.
Police brutality is an issue for everybody, not just black people. That they choose to highlight ridiculous cases, make the issue only about blacks, ignore black on black violence and black on white violence, and make ridiculous protests because Clinton said "super-predator" when describing criminal gangs in the 1990s all goes back to the "progressive" stupidity inundating the country.
I haven't seen all that much suppression of free speech on campuses.
As far as social media goes, if you want to say things on Facebook, you've got to abide by Facebook rules. The social media are privately owned, and nobody's got a right to say whatever they want on them.
No shit, but free speech isn't just about legal rights. That they're bowing to pressure to censor politically incorrect speech is the point.
I have no idea what problem you have with transgender people. The other 99% can deal with transgender people just like they deal with everybody else, and have no problems whatsoever.
If that's the case, then why is there all the media attention pushing for transgender acceptance? Why was everybody falling over themselves to talk about how "brave and stunning" Bruce Jenner was when he attempted to transform himself into a woman, and not talking about the person he killed with his car?
If somebody wants to pretend they're a woman when they're a man, well it's a free country, but I'm never going to see them as a woman, despite the barrage of "progressive" media. There's an alternative viewpoint that it's a mental illness, and normalizing transgenderism and encouraging body mutilation with hormones and reassignment surgery is unhealthy.
I said I did research and pulled from a variety of sources. It's you who is unwilling to research anything and reflexively forming an opinion. Remain blinkered.
Some are facts, some are opinions, but I look at a wide variety of sources, do research, and read beyond the headlines. That you're still defending your position tells me you want to remain blinkered.
Based on your view, I could just completely ignore the news and pretend wars on not happening, for example, or pretty much nothing is happening besides what I directly experience.
Dude the "real world" and "the news" are vastly different things. I suggest you stop watching TV and get out more. This could be the root cause of your concerns.
The news is shit actually happening. I suggest you stop blinkering yourself to reality just because you didn't personally experience it or because it disagrees with your political leanings.
This is just the "No True Scotsman" argument. Batshit crazy leftists have taken over the "progressive" movement, just like the batshit crazy feminists have taken over the feminist movement. I don't make up the news.
No, those are actual "progressive" values. I can't help you if you aren't paying attention to the news and are dismissive of things actually happening in the real world.
Because "progressive" nutters are in vogue and actually having real-world effects, whereas the religious nutters don't have as much sway. Some examples:
o Rape hysteria in the West (such as the Rolling Stone fiasco), while the real rape epidemics occur in non-Western populations and are being imported on a massive scale to the West. When sexual assaults by migrants occurred it was attempted to cover them up. Are you against such mass immigration? You're a "xenophobe", and your comments can have the police raiding your apartment. Oh, and let's not point out that Islam is the most militant religion in the world right now, and quite full of religious nutters.
o You've got the "Black Lives Matter" crowd, where criminals are defended as "children" who were "good boys". Michael Brown was a thug who robbed a convenience store and assaulted a police officer, not a victim. Blacks commit the most violence against blacks. Yet they protest Clinton because she used the term "super-predator" to describe violent gang members that were plaguing inner cities in the 1990s.
o Free speech is being shut down on campuses and on social media. You've got "microaggressions", "safe spaces", and racism being redefined so that it only applies to White males.
o Less than 1% of the population is transgender, but there's enormous social pressure that the rest of the 99% have to conform and go along with people's "chosen" gender.
I could go on and on. The "progressive" left are hypocrites, authoritarian, and overall harmful to society. They're the useful idiots of the modern era.
Also, Putin's name isn't there either, just his "childhood friend". Yet in all the newspapers it was reported that Putin was directly implicated.
Uh huh. So his childhood friend, a cellist, just happens to have $2 billion worth of holdings. But Putin had nothing to do with this, and doesn't benefit in any way. Right.
Slashdot Mirror
So you aren't willing to demonstrate the actual mathematics behind your "mathematically virtually-guarantee" claim. But we should take your word for it as a self-claimed mathematician.
Honestly, guys, I would love to witness such a thing. I firmly believe in the Drake equation. I virtually guarantee you there's "something" out there. I also mathematically virtually-guarantee you (I'm a mathematician, certainty is a big word) that we'll never be in the same time/space/evolution that we'd ever be able to communicate usefully.
Where's your mathematical analysis, then, that resolves the Fermi paradox?
Do you now see what I'm dealing with here?
Yes, somebody who sees through your "ignorant jackass" approach to arguing.
I'm quite confident after this exchange that it's the latter.
Point blank simple question, answer it: Did riots happen as a result of the false accusation in the Michael Brown shooting?
For one my business loses money because the church's political influence won't allow us to trade on certain days of the year.
Oh, you poor soul. Maybe you can find a "progressive" reason for that? After all, lots of religious dogma is based on societal good.
See how that works? Now your turn...
I'm not playing your stupid game. I don't have to be personally affected by an event to be concerned by it, just like you have no personal reason to be commenting on this Slashdot sorry. See how that works?
you pointed out some headlines
And now we're back again to the question which you tried to dodge: "So are you saying all the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud are just the collective imagination of "the news"??"
but we are yet to hear how any of things have created an actual real problem for you
Why do I have to personally experience the problem to be concerned by it? What have the religious people personally done to you that prompted your inquiry? Point on the doll where the priest touched you.
Because headlines! is not a reasoned argument.
Neither is acting like an ignorant jackass.
You didn't explain anything. You said, "So the system works. What was your problem again?" I pointed out the real-world problems generated by the "progressive" idiots, and you mumbled something about not personally believing headlines. Umm, ok?
This is what makes talking to dishonest ideologues so painful. They crank up the smog machine and make non-nonsensical replies, and fill in the blanks with insults.
"Fox News" is a subset of "the news" you retard.
No shit, but there's a difference between accusing somebody of a single-source bias and generically bashing all "news", retard.
Well you're wrong again. What do you owe me?
A gold sticker for being such a special boy? You did reference an article which can be categorized as news, though it's also a poll, which would qualify as research. So enjoy your gold star, special boy.
The difference is dummy, I didn't just read the headline and believe it in face value
Neither did I, or I'd just be another "progressive" idiot, dummy. But we've established you follow the news. So are you saying all the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud are just the collective imagination of "the news"??
I'd mirror your most X person on Slashdot I've ever argued with comment, but your kind of intellectual dishonesty is not unusual.
No, if you could read, it's the same defense.
No, first it was "the news" (widespread dismissal), then it was "Fox News" (accusation of single-source blindness), then it was back to "the news" after I pointed out yet again that I pull from a variety of sources.
No if you could read, i asked that you give us all something more substantial than "the news".
We've been over this. It's just a lazy way for you to dismiss anything that threatens your preconceived notions. And what the news chooses to report and the narrative they try to frame is a major part of the "progressive" politicking going on that has me worried.
By the way, I noticed you left out the part about, "which is quite a hypocritical position to take given that you're commenting on a sensational news story on Slashdot, 'How San Francisco Hazed a Tech Bro'." You follow the news just like anybody else, and I'm willing to bet you've used them as sources in arguments before.
Oh I'm familiar with them, I just wanted to understand which specific detail concerns you.
Oh, really? Then if you're familiar with them (I wonder how, since, you know, "the news"), you should also be familiar with the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud that went along with the false accusations hyped up by "progressives".
I'm not across this organisation, but there must be millions of similar activist groups all across America, all with varying degrees of extreme views. Do you let all of them affect your opinion?
Do you let all crazy religious groups affect your opinion? Why are you worried about religion when you want to move? The fact is the media and politicians are pandering to "progressive" nutters, with real-world consequences.
You are the one making claims of danger, not me.
I reject that there is no choice. People put up with all kinds of bullshit they don't like about their life or restraints on their desires. For example, if somebody is attracted to children that doesn't mean they are free to act on their impulses.
Also, I wonder if you've seen the video The Transgender: Normalizing MENTAL ILLNESS, and what you think of the arguments it makes.
There's no right for 1% to put themselves in a dangerous situation and then claim it's the obligation of the 99% to adjust so that isn't dangerous.
Nobody forces you to dress up a like a woman. Transgenders are less than 1% of the population insisting that the rest of the 99% accommodate them.
Give up. you sound ridiculous now.
You sound ridiculous, vacillating from one defense to another.
Burden, proof, claimant.
It's not a problem to do so, but you made it clear from the start that you wanted to dismiss anything that didn't fit your political leanings as "news", which is quite a hypocritical position to take given that you're commenting on a sensational news story on Slashdot, "How San Francisco Hazed a Tech Bro".
I gave you concrete examples of stories that achieved widespread and prolonged news coverage. I would expect somebody commenting on American politics to be familiar with them, or if not, to do a little fucking research on your own before dismissing it out of hand.
You could start by reading the Wikipedia page, which is backed up by references. The short version is that a black guy got shot by a cop, there was an outcry that it was racist police brutality, and it made national news.
Brown was called "a gentle giant". Then the police released video footage of Brown robbing a convenience store shortly before the incident, physically shoving the clerk when he confronted him. Idiots like John Oliver then say this video is "irrelevant", like it wouldn't pertain at all to his character or state of mind. The officer was eventually cleared, both by local authorities and a federal investigation, with witness testimony matching forensic evidence that backed up the officer's account. And yet this Brown thug is still a poster child for Black Lives Matter. Oh, and if you use the word "thug" you're racist.
Get real. Comments that go against the agenda are nuked for any or no reason beyond that they go against the agenda. The standard you're applying is only applied to one side of a position. One thing you can say about Slashdot, your comment may be moderated to the basement by groupthink, but at least it's there for people looking.
So now you've moved back from bashing "Fox News" to "the news". A simple search will show a great number of sources. But you want to bury your head in the sand, and pretend nothing is going on that isn't happening to you personally.
Dude, my reality is a wide variety of sources, from liberal to conservative, and I don't reflexively dismiss a source out of ideology. Come back when you're willing to take your blinkers off.
Blinkered to reality and anything that threatens your ingrained politics.
Black Lives Matter has a lot of legitimate points, but what happened to Michael Brown was not one of them. It's unpleasantly common for police to kill people who aren't actually threatening anyone and get away with it, particularly when the victims are blacks. We're starting to see some action on that, including the bypassing of grand juries and the drive for body cams.
Police brutality is an issue for everybody, not just black people. That they choose to highlight ridiculous cases, make the issue only about blacks, ignore black on black violence and black on white violence, and make ridiculous protests because Clinton said "super-predator" when describing criminal gangs in the 1990s all goes back to the "progressive" stupidity inundating the country.
I haven't seen all that much suppression of free speech on campuses.
https://www.thefire.org/catego...
This is also a good place to mention the University of Missouri ridiculousness as part of the general zeitgeist of college campuses.
As far as social media goes, if you want to say things on Facebook, you've got to abide by Facebook rules. The social media are privately owned, and nobody's got a right to say whatever they want on them.
No shit, but free speech isn't just about legal rights. That they're bowing to pressure to censor politically incorrect speech is the point.
I have no idea what problem you have with transgender people. The other 99% can deal with transgender people just like they deal with everybody else, and have no problems whatsoever.
If that's the case, then why is there all the media attention pushing for transgender acceptance? Why was everybody falling over themselves to talk about how "brave and stunning" Bruce Jenner was when he attempted to transform himself into a woman, and not talking about the person he killed with his car?
If somebody wants to pretend they're a woman when they're a man, well it's a free country, but I'm never going to see them as a woman, despite the barrage of "progressive" media. There's an alternative viewpoint that it's a mental illness, and normalizing transgenderism and encouraging body mutilation with hormones and reassignment surgery is unhealthy.
I said I did research and pulled from a variety of sources. It's you who is unwilling to research anything and reflexively forming an opinion. Remain blinkered.
Some are facts, some are opinions, but I look at a wide variety of sources, do research, and read beyond the headlines. That you're still defending your position tells me you want to remain blinkered.
Based on your view, I could just completely ignore the news and pretend wars on not happening, for example, or pretty much nothing is happening besides what I directly experience.
Dude the "real world" and "the news" are vastly different things. I suggest you stop watching TV and get out more. This could be the root cause of your concerns.
The news is shit actually happening. I suggest you stop blinkering yourself to reality just because you didn't personally experience it or because it disagrees with your political leanings.
This is just the "No True Scotsman" argument. Batshit crazy leftists have taken over the "progressive" movement, just like the batshit crazy feminists have taken over the feminist movement. I don't make up the news.
No, those are actual "progressive" values. I can't help you if you aren't paying attention to the news and are dismissive of things actually happening in the real world.
Because "progressive" nutters are in vogue and actually having real-world effects, whereas the religious nutters don't have as much sway. Some examples:
o Rape hysteria in the West (such as the Rolling Stone fiasco), while the real rape epidemics occur in non-Western populations and are being imported on a massive scale to the West. When sexual assaults by migrants occurred it was attempted to cover them up. Are you against such mass immigration? You're a "xenophobe", and your comments can have the police raiding your apartment. Oh, and let's not point out that Islam is the most militant religion in the world right now, and quite full of religious nutters.
o You've got the "Black Lives Matter" crowd, where criminals are defended as "children" who were "good boys". Michael Brown was a thug who robbed a convenience store and assaulted a police officer, not a victim. Blacks commit the most violence against blacks. Yet they protest Clinton because she used the term "super-predator" to describe violent gang members that were plaguing inner cities in the 1990s.
o Free speech is being shut down on campuses and on social media. You've got "microaggressions", "safe spaces", and racism being redefined so that it only applies to White males.
o Less than 1% of the population is transgender, but there's enormous social pressure that the rest of the 99% have to conform and go along with people's "chosen" gender.
I could go on and on. The "progressive" left are hypocrites, authoritarian, and overall harmful to society. They're the useful idiots of the modern era.
I used to worry about the religious nutters, politically, but these days I'm more worried about the "progressive" nutters.
Also, Putin's name isn't there either, just his "childhood friend". Yet in all the newspapers it was reported that Putin was directly implicated.
Uh huh. So his childhood friend, a cellist, just happens to have $2 billion worth of holdings. But Putin had nothing to do with this, and doesn't benefit in any way. Right.
Useful idiot.