You spell potatoe, I say tomatay, or: politicians and liars; is the former a strict <del>superset</del><ins>subset</ins> of the latter? Discuss.
-
Imagine Trump vs Putin in a game of "global thermonuclear war".
I'll be in my bunker.
"You're fired at!"
-
Re: Title change. Just noticed that so I FTFY. Now if somebody (one of you discodelving discowizaeds) could FIFM, it would be appreciated. Thank you.
-
not all liars are politicians
So you agree with me that politicians aren't a superset of liars. Have a .
-
I know what you meant. It's astoundingly naive that you're willing to cripple your country just for amusement.
A lot of Americans believe our Government works better if it expressly does not accomplish any of its goals.
It demonstrably does not cripple our country for two reasons:
-
Most actually important decisions are made at the State or City level. (The Federal Government is about 50 times stronger than the Founding Fathers anticipated, but it's still significantly weaker than in most countries.)
-
We're still kicking your country's ass at pretty much everything important.
NEW RULE: you don't get to criticize the US unless your country has put at minimum one person into space, and I can reasonably buy a 150-seat jet airliner without leaving your borders. That disqualifies pretty much everybody except Russia and possibly China.
-
-
NEW RULE: you don't get to criticize the US unless your country has put at minimum one person into space, and I can reasonably buy a 150-seat jet airliner without leaving your borders. That disqualifies pretty much everybody except Russia and possibly China.
Firstly: Airbus
Secondly: Nowhere did you state that the launch has to be within a country's borders. Thus: ESA.
-
Firstly: Airbus
Right; France meets one of the qualifications but not the other.
Secondly: Nowhere did you state that the launch has to be within a country's borders. Thus: ESA.
Even if I counted the ESA, it's never sent a person into space without putting him in an American or Russian spacecraft. No Ariane has ever been man-rated. And I don't think the ESA has any other launch platforms that even conceivably in the realm of fantasy be man-rated.
-
Right; France meets one of the qualifications but not the other.
Even if I counted the ESA, it's never sent a person into space without putting him in an American or Russian spacecraft. No Ariane has ever been man-rated. And I don't think the ESA has any other launch platforms that even conceivably in the realm of fantasy be man-rated.
Strangely enough, several of my friends work at Airbus. In Hamburg. You do know it's a multinational company?
Secondly, regarding the man-rating of the Ariane:
At the time of approval, it was intended that Ariane-5 would also be tailored to carry the Hermes manned spaceplane. Although Hermes was later shelved, the design can still be man-rated if required.
So much for "inconceivably"...
You'd make a dreadful lawyer: Your rules are way too ambiguous.
-
Strangely enough, several of my friends work at Airbus. In Hamburg. You do know it's a multinational company?
Right; which means I'm being super-generous to even give that one point to France.
Secondly, regarding the man-rating of the Ariane:
It's almost as if your quote confirms exactly what I just said. I like how their URL files "failed to man-rate it" as an "achievement".
So much for "inconceivably"...
Read what I typed again. I said ESA has no launch platform other than Ariane that is remotely close to being man-rated.
Ariane could easily be so if anybody in Euro gave a shit. It's a heck of a lot better than the "reliable" rocket stacks the US and Russia used in the past (and on-par with current Soyuz), and carries a bigger payload. You just don't care. Because you know you'd always be 4th place. And that's pathetic.
-
Then again, why should we spend the big bucks when you guys are just fine with carrying us?
-
You shouldn't. Like I said, you should give up and cry in the darkest corner of the basement, because the fucking Chinese beat you. The Chinese! They can't even keep lead out of their food!
-
Did someone start a new "race to the moon" type competition while I wasn't looking?
Because otherwise your statement about the Chinese "beating" us doesn't even begin to make sense.
-
Did someone start a new "race to the moon" type competition while I wasn't looking?
Didn't need to. The first one never stopped.
-
Riiight.
-
Ok; let's choose a different field of endeavor. Where's that high quality German computer operating system I can install on my PC?
-
You know, this is pathetic. You're like this little kid which desperately needs to prove his superiority and thus begins to run somewhere to an arbitrary point. And upon having reached said point he declares himself the winner!
Nevermind that no one else bothered to even look in his direction in the first place.
-
Right; so you're saying I won.
-
Whatever makes you sleep at night. I certainly won't be responsible for your mental breakdown if I gave you the impression that your precious country somehow wasn't the BEST THING EVAR
-
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
Ah.
Whiskey.
EDIT: you guys remember that German sci-fi show from the 60s? Raumpatrouille? Even in a German show for a German audience, they make the hero spaceship captain an American.
-
Thought as much.
-
NEW RULE: you don't get to criticize the US unless your country has put at minimum one person into space,
NEW NEW RULE: you get to take any critique from a country that is THIS YEAR at least as able as you to put a human into space. So anyone can critisize any other country with the exceptions of Russia and perhaps India and China.
-
EDIT: you guys remember that German sci-fi show from the 60s? Raumpatrouille? Even in a German show for a German audience, they make the hero spaceship captain an American.
Might as well have been a scotsman.
-
You do realize how pathetic saying that makes you sound?
It's a fucking argument on the Internet. Just being here is laughable; actually 'winning' carries less weight than winning a Razzie.
ObOnTopic: Or the POTUS election, which is, let's face it, a run off to see who the biggest fool in the country is. Yay, I won the blame for everything that goes wrong in the nation for the next four years, with no recourse for fixing any of it because the Chief Executive is Congress' bitch and has no power to do anything that isn't already committed to someone else's special interest! Hurrah for me!
Political power is, by its very nature, inversely proportional to freedom of action, or in other words, the more you can do, the less choice you have in what you do.
-
Oh, like sane people ever get into debates on the Internet.
If you don't want to go among mad people, what are you doing here? 'Cos trust me, that abyss does stare back. Oh, and if you are going to accuse people of being insane, you might want to look into a mirror first, because just the fact that you're here tells me that you aren't playing with a full deck, either. At least I know I'm a loon, do you?
-
'Cos trust me, that abyss does stare back.
The abyss doesn't just stare back. It posts ill-informed rants and accuses you of being wrong.
-
The ratbyss
-
At least I know I'm a loon, do you?
No. I like getting into arguments on the internet because it's a good way to blow off steam. Much better than having these things IRL.
-
That's what "muh guns" are for!
Side note: I don't own guns. Yet.
-
@ScholRLEA said:
I'd have been more surprised if either side hadn't said that.
I just assumed they were lying because they thought she was crazy or something like you did. Or maybe all that noise about men being threatened by strong women was really just projecting.
No, the truth is that in Progressivism the ends justify the means. So you do what you think will work because it will work, not because it's right or nice or any other reason.
Since when are their - or anyone's - stated position relevant to a political campaign, or the actions of politicians actually in office? It isn't as if they actually believe what they say, and even if they did, alphas (and those who think they are alphas) will still act like alphas, and justify their actions after the fact.
Ideological rhetoric does not exist to guide decisions, but to justify them, and any leader will twist it to fit their needs as they need it to. You can't take it seriously, because in the end, it is really just a false front. This is true regardless of the politician in question. You don't actually think al-Bahgdadi is really driven by Islamic faith, or Kim Jong Un by Communist doctrine, do you? Sure, they may have convinced themselves that they are, but if you look at what they are doing, it is the same enriche vous that drives Obama and Palin alike.
-
Since when are their - or anyone's - stated position relevant to a political campaign, or the actions of politicians actually in office?
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but it doesn't seem to be related. If a person thinks A when that's obviously wrong, and they plan to vote based on their belief about A, that's important. If the person passes their belief about A to other people who plan to vote, their opinion is important.
You don't actually think al-Bahgdadi is really driven by Islamic faith
Why not? I'm sure he has other motivations, too, but that doesn't mean he isn't acting on his faith.
Sure, they may have convinced themselves that they are, but if you look at what they are doing, it is the same enriche vous that drives Obama and Palin alike.
So what? They have very different ideas about how to go about it. And that's the point.
-
Don't you understand what I'm saying? Their ideas - or rather, their stated ideas - are irrelevant to what they actually end up doing, because a) they will end up doing the same things anyway, and b) even if they don't want to do those things, they don't have the actual freedom of action to do anything else.
Well, unless they go completely off the rails, that is, in which case there is a chance of them doing something incredibly destructive before one of their handlers can stop them. That was what I was afraid would happen with Palin.
-
Don't you understand what I'm saying?
I do. And like I said, it was not really related to what I said.
Their ideas - or rather, their stated ideas - are irrelevant to what they actually end up doing, because a) they will end up doing the same things anyway, and b) even if they don't want to do those things, they don't have the actual freedom of action to do anything else.
To a degree, that's true. But it's also not true to a degree.
-
having the most honest president in a shockingly long time.
Going to have to stop you there.
His remarks may be honest concerns, but his record says he's not going to handle illegal immigration much differently.
So, in that way, he's being dishonest by allowing people to assume he takes a different stance on amnesty.
He knows what the fuck he's doing.
-
He's a politician. Of course he's dishonest. But I'd still say he's an order of magnitude more honest than the usual sort, and isn't as good at hiding things.
-
No, he's playing the Conservative Obama.
Obama said he was against gay marriage and for gay civil unions only.
He also said he'd end wars in the middle east.
He said he was for immigration reform, and only committed one amnesty, only after they raised a stink about it.He only appears honest, because he's saying things that a different group is agreeing with.
Real honesty would be
"I'm going to listen to the People and find the solution that includes everyone."
And then actually do that.
Because Lord knows no single politician as President has every made a commitment to their own values.
-
Your rules are way too ambiguous
I thought that was the first rule of the Lawyers Club?
-
You can't take it seriously, because in the end, it is really just a false front.
You cannot be sure that that is true. If you're cynical the whole time, people will surprise you. Even politicians will. People have a huge attachment to believing in causes, and to trying to act to further the cause they believe in. They might be failing to act successfully (nobody was promised success), and you might not agree that they're doing the right thing in the first place, but to say that they don't ever try to do what they should is really not supported by evidence.
I used to be more cynical, but now I expect incompetence and low-level mendacity to win out over conspiracy. Most people are just shit at keeping secrets. They can't even keep their passwords private, for heck's sake, and that's just a few characters!
-
I used to be more cynical, but now I expect incompetence and low-level mendacity to win out over conspiracy. Most people are just shit at keeping secrets. They can't even keep their passwords private, for heck's sake, and that's just a few characters!
If more than one person knows it it's not a secret anymore :)
-
If more than one person knows it it's not a secret anymore
If only one person knows it, it's not a conspiracy.
-
You cannot be sure that that is true. If you're cynical the whole time, people will surprise you. Even politicians will. People have a huge attachment to believing in causes, and to trying to act to further the cause they believe in. They might be failing to act successfully (nobody was promised success), and you might not agree that they're doing the right thing in the first place, but to say that they don't ever try to do what they should is really not supported by evidence.
I quite agree, but I wasn't thinking skulduggery so much as self-deception. A lot of people also believe things quite fervently, and give sensible (or at least not absurd) arguments in favor of their view, but never consider the real psychological reasons they think that way or the ingrained habits underlying their actions. Even the smartest people only actively think about 1% of the time, the rest is scripts that were picked up throughout their lives, usually by accident. Most people never even wonder what the motives or impulses behind their Belief System are; probably less than one in a million ever get even a hint at what those motives actually are. I'm not one of them, and have never met one, either.
-
@ScholRLEA said:
Palin, OTOH, is a dangerous religious nut who should be locked up.
If you think that you are pretty dumb.
No surprise. Some people think anybody who is religious is a dangerous nut who should be locked up.
-
I'm fairly sure Trump will do well enough to cause some intense rage. If he manages to win, the meltdown it would cause in certain quarters would be worth it even if you discount the raw entertainment value and the novelty of having the most honest president in a shockingly long time.
I'm not at all sure I trust that the source of this data is unbiased, but it appears that not everyone agrees with your belief that Trump would be the most honest president.
http://front.dadaviz.com/media/viz_images/truthometer-which-presidential-candidates-are-more-1439129331.26-5265759.png
-
Hence the problem with keeping conspiracies secret.
-
Well, "validity" is not the same as "honesty" - I mean, he may very well believe that Santa is real.
-
I'd deprecate to use "validity" in the sense of "truthfulness" - otherwise I wouldn't know how to address the (logical) validity of a logical figure (regardless of it premises / conclusion). (Best explanation of the difference I know is here)
(this is against your quote, not against you)
-
Well, "validity" is not the same as "honesty" - I mean, he may very well believe that Santa is real.
There's a difference between “not true” and “lie”. The latter requires that the author of the statement know that it is not true prior to it being said and that the statement be said with the intent to mislead.
-
-
Some people think anybody who is religious is a dangerous nut who should be locked up
But most of my family is filled with religious nuts and they're all crazy!Well... so is everyone else but shhhhh
-
the author of the statement know that it is not true prior to it being said and that the statement be said with the intent to mislead.
I prefer the definition of fraud in German penology - the statement doesn't necessarily have to be not true, it is sufficient that it is used in a way suitable for inducing a false conjecture (it still has to lead to an action that directly results in a pecunial damage, though).
-
But most of my family is filled with religious nuts and they're all crazy!
Some people are nuts that are dangerous enough to justify locking them up.
Some people are religious nuts.Complete the syllogism.
-
Nuts are delicious
Some people are delicious
Therefore we should all be cannibalsFiled Under: Yay I get to take Discreet Math this semester
