|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 11 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:10 Wulfey_LA wrote:So now we have reached the point where the conservative posters here are where DonJR and Hannity are at: they concede Collusion but argue (1) it isn't so bad because there isn't a specific law against it and (2) Dems would have done it too (even though they didn't) so that makes it okay when Republicans did it. This is a crap argument and it will fall apart faster than you think. Especially when Trump himself tweets out the confirmation of the center of the story in a few hours. Remember what Bill Clinton was impeached for: Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. Process violations are real crimes in America and you damned well know Kushner, DonJR, and Flynn are going to lie under oath before 2018. If Dems win in 2018, Trump himself will lie under oath before 2020. DonJR admitting intent for Collusion, but claims his attempt went nowhere: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884395618784993280
Hannity conceding Team Trump was going in for the dirt from the Russians: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/884194562029346817 Ground zero for rewriting history to fit a political narrative: 1) Pretend opposition research is suspicious based on party and ethnicity, instead of widespread and common 2) Ignore how quickly collusion in hacking got trashed despite months of leaks and assertions (shifting goalposts) 3) Continued blind ignorance of law regarding obstruction of justice. We have google now, there's really no excuse. All these things will make Democrats fight uphill battles in 2018 and make the White House harder to take in 2020. At this point, you'd be better off believing the British spy dossier is an accurate account of what happened.
#1 isn't referring to Obama's birth certificate, I hope.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 11 2017 01:26 Falling wrote:
Well in regards to motivation and historically speaking, I believe the West had a fairly large blind spot at the height of the Cold War for indentifying traitors working for the Russians. They were always looking for the ideological communist that turned spy. Turned out it was the more mercenary motivation that turned to spying for the Russians: desperate or greedy for money. I have no idea about the present or outside of turncoats.
An example I like to use is the state of the security clearance process, which constantly ranges from "I must protect my Army Budget Logistics Office from Russians and terrorist threats" (losing many capable workers for it) to letting pretty obvious dangers like Snowden and Winners slip through the cracks.
|
I personally check it like... Not at all, i look at the sky in the morning and chose my clothes. I also don't read my horoscope.
I still like meteology, but more for knowing/explanatins as to how/why something happened.
|
|
|
That high school kid gets an A and should be a journalist. Cold calling for jobs is intimidating. Cold calling the secretary of defense for an interview is legendary.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 11 2017 01:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it. A very roundabout way to say "I trust them because I trust them not to make mistakes." Well, that's your right of course, but blindly trusting a scientist or a group thereof is also problematic if you do it blindly. There is this neat little thing called evidence that you can use to confirm things. And the case for trusting your choice of historians is even more tenuous given the less-than-factual nature of historical "facts" relative to that of hard science. No, I trust them because I trust the system to filter out those who do make mistakes. I don't think they're infallible, I think the system does a good job of managing and mitigating their fallibility. This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it.
So you take a religious approach to trusting those you deem to be well policed experts without feeling the need to independently verify their accuracy and/or trustworthiness? Do you take the same approach to the divinely inspired representatives of God?
This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 11 2017 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:36 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it. A very roundabout way to say "I trust them because I trust them not to make mistakes." Well, that's your right of course, but blindly trusting a scientist or a group thereof is also problematic if you do it blindly. There is this neat little thing called evidence that you can use to confirm things. And the case for trusting your choice of historians is even more tenuous given the less-than-factual nature of historical "facts" relative to that of hard science. No, I trust them because I trust the system to filter out those who do make mistakes. I don't think they're infallible, I think the system does a good job of managing and mitigating their fallibility. This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. So you take a religious approach to trusting those you deem to be well policed experts without feeling the need to independently verify their accuracy and/or trustworthiness? Do you take the same approach to the divinely inspired representatives of God? This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it.
This has to be one of your more disingenuous posts. Kwark is clear that he trusts experts to a point and has been during the entire discussion. At this point you are not interested in discussion, but trolling.
|
United States42688 Posts
On July 11 2017 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:36 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it. A very roundabout way to say "I trust them because I trust them not to make mistakes." Well, that's your right of course, but blindly trusting a scientist or a group thereof is also problematic if you do it blindly. There is this neat little thing called evidence that you can use to confirm things. And the case for trusting your choice of historians is even more tenuous given the less-than-factual nature of historical "facts" relative to that of hard science. No, I trust them because I trust the system to filter out those who do make mistakes. I don't think they're infallible, I think the system does a good job of managing and mitigating their fallibility. This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. So you take a religious approach to trusting those you deem to be well policed experts without feeling the need to independently verify their accuracy and/or trustworthiness? Do you take the same approach to the divinely inspired representatives of God? This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it.
No. I don't take a religious approach to it. You're consistently failing to understand the very simple words I am using here. I say A, you reply "it is of course your right to do B", I repeat A, you go "so you're saying you do B".
Again, A. Not B. A.
|
An excellent interview, and awesome way to use the opportunity WaPo unwittingly presented. This is something everyone in the thread should read for sure.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 11 2017 01:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:49 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:36 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it. A very roundabout way to say "I trust them because I trust them not to make mistakes." Well, that's your right of course, but blindly trusting a scientist or a group thereof is also problematic if you do it blindly. There is this neat little thing called evidence that you can use to confirm things. And the case for trusting your choice of historians is even more tenuous given the less-than-factual nature of historical "facts" relative to that of hard science. No, I trust them because I trust the system to filter out those who do make mistakes. I don't think they're infallible, I think the system does a good job of managing and mitigating their fallibility. This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. So you take a religious approach to trusting those you deem to be well policed experts without feeling the need to independently verify their accuracy and/or trustworthiness? Do you take the same approach to the divinely inspired representatives of God? This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. No. I don't take a religious approach to it. You're consistently failing to understand the very simple words I am using here. I say A, you reply "it is of course your right to do B", I repeat A, you go "so you're saying you do B". Again, A. Not B. A.
At this point you're basically twisting your words to say something but to not have to own up to the implications of what that means. This kind of semantic deflection makes it clear that there is nothing left to discuss.
|
On July 11 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:52 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:49 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:36 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it. A very roundabout way to say "I trust them because I trust them not to make mistakes." Well, that's your right of course, but blindly trusting a scientist or a group thereof is also problematic if you do it blindly. There is this neat little thing called evidence that you can use to confirm things. And the case for trusting your choice of historians is even more tenuous given the less-than-factual nature of historical "facts" relative to that of hard science. No, I trust them because I trust the system to filter out those who do make mistakes. I don't think they're infallible, I think the system does a good job of managing and mitigating their fallibility. This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. So you take a religious approach to trusting those you deem to be well policed experts without feeling the need to independently verify their accuracy and/or trustworthiness? Do you take the same approach to the divinely inspired representatives of God? This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. No. I don't take a religious approach to it. You're consistently failing to understand the very simple words I am using here. I say A, you reply "it is of course your right to do B", I repeat A, you go "so you're saying you do B". Again, A. Not B. A. At this point you're basically twisting your words to say something but to not have to own up to the implications of what that means. This kind of semantic deflection makes it clear that there is nothing left to discuss.
Your erroneous conflation of belief in a system vs. belief in individuals is the only word twisting going on here.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 11 2017 02:05 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:52 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:49 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:36 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it. A very roundabout way to say "I trust them because I trust them not to make mistakes." Well, that's your right of course, but blindly trusting a scientist or a group thereof is also problematic if you do it blindly. There is this neat little thing called evidence that you can use to confirm things. And the case for trusting your choice of historians is even more tenuous given the less-than-factual nature of historical "facts" relative to that of hard science. No, I trust them because I trust the system to filter out those who do make mistakes. I don't think they're infallible, I think the system does a good job of managing and mitigating their fallibility. This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. So you take a religious approach to trusting those you deem to be well policed experts without feeling the need to independently verify their accuracy and/or trustworthiness? Do you take the same approach to the divinely inspired representatives of God? This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. No. I don't take a religious approach to it. You're consistently failing to understand the very simple words I am using here. I say A, you reply "it is of course your right to do B", I repeat A, you go "so you're saying you do B". Again, A. Not B. A. At this point you're basically twisting your words to say something but to not have to own up to the implications of what that means. This kind of semantic deflection makes it clear that there is nothing left to discuss. Your erroneous conflation of belief in a system vs. belief in individuals is the only word twisting going on here.
A system made of people?
Blind trust is blind trust; you still have to trust the people in it regardless of "the system."
|
United States42688 Posts
On July 11 2017 02:01 NewSunshine wrote:An excellent interview, and awesome way to use the opportunity WaPo unwittingly presented. This is something everyone in the thread should read for sure.
He had a surprising number of good things to say about Clinton and a fair bit of veiled criticism of Trump in there.
|
|
|
On July 11 2017 02:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 02:05 NewSunshine wrote:On July 11 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:52 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:49 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:36 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it. A very roundabout way to say "I trust them because I trust them not to make mistakes." Well, that's your right of course, but blindly trusting a scientist or a group thereof is also problematic if you do it blindly. There is this neat little thing called evidence that you can use to confirm things. And the case for trusting your choice of historians is even more tenuous given the less-than-factual nature of historical "facts" relative to that of hard science. No, I trust them because I trust the system to filter out those who do make mistakes. I don't think they're infallible, I think the system does a good job of managing and mitigating their fallibility. This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. So you take a religious approach to trusting those you deem to be well policed experts without feeling the need to independently verify their accuracy and/or trustworthiness? Do you take the same approach to the divinely inspired representatives of God? This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. No. I don't take a religious approach to it. You're consistently failing to understand the very simple words I am using here. I say A, you reply "it is of course your right to do B", I repeat A, you go "so you're saying you do B". Again, A. Not B. A. At this point you're basically twisting your words to say something but to not have to own up to the implications of what that means. This kind of semantic deflection makes it clear that there is nothing left to discuss. Your erroneous conflation of belief in a system vs. belief in individuals is the only word twisting going on here. A system made of people? Blind trust is blind trust; you still have to trust the people in it regardless of "the system."
There is an implicit value you can place on an expert's opinion precisely because of a system that constantly assesses their validity. Should an expert do something to discredit themselves or their opinion, my value of that expert's opinion will likewise change. A far cry from your inane declaration of "religious belief" in experts.
On July 11 2017 02:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 02:01 NewSunshine wrote:An excellent interview, and awesome way to use the opportunity WaPo unwittingly presented. This is something everyone in the thread should read for sure. He had a surprising number of good things to say about Clinton and a fair bit of veiled criticism of Trump in there.
It's very popular to trash Clinton, especially in this thread, but unlike Trump she has done some very effective things when it comes to international relations, being Secretary of State.
|
United States42688 Posts
On July 11 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 01:52 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:49 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:36 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote:On July 11 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:
You're doing the thing that Bible literalists do when they say that science can't be trusted because nobody is infallible. And sure, experts can be wrong. Just because they're an expert doesn't mean that they are always right. However the process is self regulating, experts are constantly assessing and testing the claims of other experts and an expert whose claims are routinely found to be false ceases to be viewed as an expert.
So yes, if I was trusting an expert purely because they are an expert then that would be wrong, in the same way that trusting a scientist because they're wearing a lab coat would be wrong.
But that's not actually how the process works. You trust an expert because you trust the system that creates experts to not let people who aren't generally right be acclaimed as experts and to rapidly disclaim their expertise should they cease to be right. In the same way you trust a scientist not because they're a scientist but because the scientific method involves screening and verification.
But good try. Maybe pitch that with the "believing in science is just another form of faith" crowd. They'll enjoy it. A very roundabout way to say "I trust them because I trust them not to make mistakes." Well, that's your right of course, but blindly trusting a scientist or a group thereof is also problematic if you do it blindly. There is this neat little thing called evidence that you can use to confirm things. And the case for trusting your choice of historians is even more tenuous given the less-than-factual nature of historical "facts" relative to that of hard science. No, I trust them because I trust the system to filter out those who do make mistakes. I don't think they're infallible, I think the system does a good job of managing and mitigating their fallibility. This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. So you take a religious approach to trusting those you deem to be well policed experts without feeling the need to independently verify their accuracy and/or trustworthiness? Do you take the same approach to the divinely inspired representatives of God? This isn't complicated, you really ought to understand it. No. I don't take a religious approach to it. You're consistently failing to understand the very simple words I am using here. I say A, you reply "it is of course your right to do B", I repeat A, you go "so you're saying you do B". Again, A. Not B. A. At this point you're basically twisting your words to say something but to not have to own up to the implications of what that means. This kind of semantic deflection makes it clear that there is nothing left to discuss.
"How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?"
You always have to make certain assumptions to know something. Even if you trust nothing but observable evidence that you personally observed you still have to make the assumption that the evidence is valid and that you are capable of accurately observing it.
I have clearly detailed the assumptions that I am making and given my justifications for making them. Again, the justification is that while a specific claim made by an expert may be false the system whereby an expert is acclaimed as an expert is self policing and will screen out experts who routinely make false claims. The status of expert does not guarantee that future claims made will be accurate or informed but does imply a previous pattern of accurate or informed claims. The system can be observed to be effective. It would not be practical to personally assess the validity of every claim I encounter, even if I were capable of making such an assessment without first accepting dozens of other claims upon which the first claim is built. To know anything it is necessary to trust existing systems of verifying information. Like the scientific method, the review and competition between authorities within a field works to reduce the authority of individuals lacking expertise. This is not simple faith.
If I may be blunt LegalLord, you're acting like an idiot who 10 minutes ago went "wow, how can I know what you see is red is the same colour I see?" and still thinks that is the single most profound thought anyone has ever had. You're embarrassing yourself.
|
On July 11 2017 02:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 02:01 NewSunshine wrote:An excellent interview, and awesome way to use the opportunity WaPo unwittingly presented. This is something everyone in the thread should read for sure. He had a surprising number of good things to say about Clinton and a fair bit of veiled criticism of Trump in there.
Mattis has always been the model of "A-political General" that assess results over politics. A highschool kid calling you up to ask for an interview is the perfect cover for providing honest answers.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Eh. At this point it's clear you're just trolling and that there's no point in discussing anything with you. So I'll end it at that.
|
On July 11 2017 02:01 NewSunshine wrote:An excellent interview, and awesome way to use the opportunity WaPo unwittingly presented. This is something everyone in the thread should read for sure.
I found some parts weird:
Every high school whether it be in Afghanistan or Syria or wherever, would send one boy and one girl for one year to Mercer island or to Topeka, Kansas or wherever.
It wouldn’t cost that much if you had sponsoring families that would take them in. Most American families are very generous, unless they’ve lived in places where they’ve adopted kind of a selfish style. But, that’s only a few pockets of the country that really have that bad.
Great idea, bring in kids from Afghanistan and Syria as exchange students... the only problem he sees is the liberal parts of the country, not the muslim-ban/build-a-wall proponents?
|
On July 11 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2017 02:09 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2017 02:01 NewSunshine wrote:An excellent interview, and awesome way to use the opportunity WaPo unwittingly presented. This is something everyone in the thread should read for sure. He had a surprising number of good things to say about Clinton and a fair bit of veiled criticism of Trump in there. Mattis has always been the model of "A-political General" that assess results over politics. A highschool kid calling you up to ask for an interview is the perfect cover for providing honest answers.
you can only get away with being apolitical if you're also politically savvy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
