Brian Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 4:39 PM, blackstar212 said: Another "sky is falling" article. I will believe it when I see it.No, you won't. <shrug> 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 4:42 PM, Brian said: I'd trace it back to at least 1876, honestly, but 1901 and 1919 are significant dates as well. You've long demonstrated that you really don't care to see "evidence" as you dismiss any evidence which runs counter to your own ideology so I won't waste my time. I've provided the starting points, though, for anyone with a sincere curiosity. I do care about evidence, but the evidence you present is not always of a factual nature and one of a certain bias. Further, I don't have time to be a fanatical reductionist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 4:45 PM, ralis said: I do care about evidence, but the evidence you present is not always of a factual nature and one of a certain bias. Further, I don't have time to be a fanatical reductionist. LOL If you say so... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) On 11/28/2016 at 4:46 PM, Brian said: LOL If you say so... In general, you don't provide any real clues, but insinuate that you know the so called truth. The problem as I see it is one of the patriarchy that holds sway. Edited November 28, 2016 by ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 4:45 PM, ralis said: I do care about evidence, but the evidence you present is not always of a factual nature and one of a certain bias. Further, I don't have time to be a fanatical reductionist.I am curious, though, ralis. What happened to the thing about your perfect life being one in which you wouldn't have to argue with me? You do have the option to not argue with me, you know. Instead, you could learn from me! You would find me to be a patient teacher who pulls knowledge from all directions and synthesizes an ever-changing worldview from it. People of all ideologies and philosophies find me frustrating in the same way you do because I am not an ideologue nor do I embrace a single belief system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 4:48 PM, ralis said: In general, you don't provide any real clues, but insinuate that you know the so called truth. The problem as I see it is one of the patriarchy that holds sway.Did you pause to consider why I listed those particular years? I didn't pull them from a hat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blackstar212 Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 4:42 PM, Brian said: No, you won't. <shrug> Sure I will. I will be the first to post to eat my crow. Hint it won't happen just a sky is falling nonsense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 4:48 PM, ralis said: In general, you don't provide any real clues, but insinuate that you know the so called truth. The problem as I see it is one of the patriarchy that holds sway.I generally don't deal in "the so called truth", ralis. I deal in details and the patterns which emerge from them. Both the details and the patterns often run counter to generally accepted truths and end up making people uncomfortable. In real life, I typically avoid sharing my observations because feelings get hurt, people get angry, emotions flare, reason flies out the window, paradigms get threatened, etc. Now that I think about it... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) On 11/28/2016 at 4:42 PM, Brian said: I'd trace it back to at least 1876, honestly, but 1901 and 1919 are significant dates as well. You've long demonstrated that you really don't care to see "evidence" as you dismiss any evidence which runs counter to your own ideology so I won't waste my time. I've provided the starting points, though, for anyone with a sincere curiosity. The election of 1876 in which Electoral College votes were disputed. Edited November 28, 2016 by ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 5:04 PM, ralis said: The election of 1876 in which Electoral College votes were disputed.That was an interesting election but that's not the detail I was referencing. The pattern begins to emerge with the juxtaposition of those three years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 5:01 PM, Brian said: I generally don't deal in "the so called truth", ralis. I deal in details and the patterns which emerge from them. Both the details and the patterns often run counter to generally accepted truths and end up making people uncomfortable. In real life, I typically avoid sharing my observations because feelings get hurt, people get angry, emotions flare, reason flies out the window, paradigms get threatened, etc. Now that I think about it... Patterns are not always what they appear to be. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 5:23 PM, ralis said: Patterns are not always what they appear to be.Indeed! And all models are wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blackstar212 Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 5:14 PM, Brian said: That was an interesting election but that's not the detail I was referencing. The pattern begins to emerge with the juxtaposition of those three years. Are you referencing the constitutional convention of 1901? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 5:33 PM, Brian said: Indeed! And all models are wrong. Not in the absolute, but a margin of error. Especially, in the case of dynamic nonlinear variables which applies to all systems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 5:41 PM, ralis said: Not in the absolute, but a margin of error. Especially, in the case of dynamic nonlinear variables which applies to all systems.Ummm... No, I mean in the absolute. A model of any nontrivial system is necessarily an abstraction and is therefore at least incomplete even if the principles are well-founded. An incomplete model cannot be considered correct in absolute terms. So far, the history of discovery in any field shows that even the most well-founded principles should be considered approximations rather than truths, even if the confidence level is sufficiently high to warrant speaking in absolute terms. Once that caveat is forgotten, however, and supposition is considered "Truth" -- well, that's where things start running into the proverbial ditch. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 2:24 PM, Aetherous said: It seems like that's the motivation for the recount. I've also read that they're attempting to make it so that Trump has 260 or less electoral votes, which would force the vote to go to Congress or something, to further delegitimatize his win. But the vote going to Congress would be a waste of time since Congress is controlled in both houses by Republicans. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 3:40 PM, Brian said: It's all about fomenting the collapse of the civil society in hopes that Utopia will somehow spontaneously rise from the ruins despite it never having happened before. I would call that a pipe dream. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 5:33 PM, Brian said: Indeed! And all models are wrong. I've seen some models who were perfectly right. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 6:03 PM, Brian said: Ummm... No, I mean in the absolute. A model of any nontrivial system is necessarily an abstraction and is therefore at least incomplete even if the principles are well-founded. An incomplete model cannot be considered correct in absolute terms. So far, the history of discovery in any field shows that even the most well-founded principles should be considered approximations rather than truths, even if the confidence level is sufficiently high to warrant speaking in absolute terms. Once that caveat is forgotten, however, and supposition is considered "Truth" -- well, that's where things start running into the proverbial ditch. Sorry I misstated that. I meant no model is absolute. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 6:19 PM, ralis said: Sorry I misstated that. I meant no model is absolute.I agree! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aeran Posted November 28, 2016 Saying "it was announced by Anonymous" means about as much as saying "some drunk guy told it to me in a bar last night." By definition, anyone can adopt the label of "Anonymous" - that's the whole point of it. While not a whole lot would surprise me at this stage, after how insane the whole election cycle has been, I find myself believing that if American politics were corrupt enough for this to take place, then they would be corrupt enough for Hillary to have just been handed an outright victory in the first place. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wells Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) . Edited March 2, 2017 by Wells Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted November 29, 2016 On 11/28/2016 at 4:14 PM, Brian said: Coming this winter? Seems unlikely but I won't be surprised. In fact, I'll take your bet -- not because I think it is likely but because those odds seem reasonable. The plan has been in place and underway for a century, stepping ever closer, aided by self-ascribed "fellow travelers" and abetted by "useful innocents." Seeing plans which have been openly planned being executed in broad daylight is not paranoia or tin-foil hat conspiracy theory but is also no basis for freaking out. I accept. Payment at the end of January okay? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wells Posted November 29, 2016 (edited) . Edited March 2, 2017 by Wells 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blackstar212 Posted November 29, 2016 On 11/29/2016 at 12:11 AM, Wells said: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pennsylvania-state-department-says-stein-missed-recount-deadline/article/2608305 so much for the dramatic sky is falling nonsense. It did not take long. Lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
