Oh look, a pure, unadulterated ad hominem. Wasn't you bitch little ass complaining about ad hominem a few posts ago? What happened, Dr Jekyl?
a) A personal attack does not equate ad hominem by default. I understand that this goes over your head, so just believe me.
b) "Muh atricles say" is a lame authority fallacy. It reminds me of the brain dead people in university vote arguments where "newspaper said X". No idea why lucianne and yahoo sports are any kind of political science authority in your mind, but whatever.
If everyone around you decides to become looters and arsonists, you not looting and starting fires isn't an action of protest against looting and arson. It's you continuing to be a decent human being.
Of course there isn't. Both advance the D agenda, how's that not consistent?
I haven't been following this. What's the backstory?
You tell the company they're not allowed to have US citizens as users and they need to ban them from the app. The company needs to comply or face the consequences.
And balls. Big balls.
That's the whole point of going for herd immunity. You don't get seconds.
Let's take thunder. For millennia, people could not rationally explain thunder. Instead, they worshiped it (say, Zeus' weapon).
To refuse to accept the exegesis (thunder is Zeus weapon and he's having a fit) within a rational framework of interpreting reality, does not mean that thunder does not exist. It simply means that Zeus doesn't cut it as an explanation.
It took millennia for thunder, a much simpler construct that consciousness. Just because we peasants ride cars and have fridges now (things kings in the past didn't have), that does not mean that humanity has reached a stage of mental progress such that it can understand everything. Hopefully, there's a "yet" somewhere there, although I did not dare add it.
So, there's a ton of stuff we are currently unable to understand rationally. But other than the rational framework of "proof", there is no other basis of accepting anything. Even without going into theoretical debates, a quick look in history is enough to tell us that the rational framework's efficiency (due to its fit with reality) has overshadowed everything by a huuuuuuuuuge margin. So, we stick to the thing we know that works.
Fox Mulder has joined the chat
Dude, you're talking to a guy who's arrogant as fuck - despite that I suppress it when it comes to interacting with non-shitty people. Don't worry though, I'll be happy to accommodate your nauseating reduction to absurdity, because you're so not special that the arguments are practically commoditized.
So I'll tell you a story about adults. Us in the smart human territory have this thing called epistemology. It's a very daunting and slippery discipline for people on the first quartile of the intelligence distribution, so it's expected that you are not aware. That's fine, I am a philozoist.
One of the basic tenets of ... oh sorry I got carried away. Let me rephrase.
"if no proof be, no claim of be be true"
It's a little differently phrased in the original but I'm confident I'm translating this well for your level. In any case, feel free to ask for clarifications, you're so cute.
It's only possible if you die your hair pink/green/blue.
I see. You see this as a non-issue because you're only concerned with the legality of it. If we've learned anything these years, is that legality in practice is a very elastic concept when it comes to things Democrats really care for. So, a non-issue?Well, yeah, if losing the election doesn't matter, sure.
You need a D in your life to qualify.
And that's entirely the point. It exists but we don't know why. Furthermore, we may never be able to prove why via standard observable science.
And? What is wrong with this at this point? In the future, we shall see.
Consciousness (and the theory of sub conscious) refer to an entire area of existence that don't fit within the physical constructs of scientific observation.
Well, that's were you need proof. Otherwise, what's to support your specific theory of consciousness over any different one?
Therefore, using science to disprove OP, is a fruitless effort.
See how you end up in wrong conclusions by not being robust in reasoning? Fail a step of the chain, ship sinks.
You seem to understand what's being presented...but you keep talking in circles around it like you have an axe to grind.
Well, two things.
a) I find passive aggressiveness of poor taste.
b) If successfully defending my position is a moral deficiency in your eyes, well, I guess that's perfectly fine for me.
Commiting an ad hominem means that you failed to use logic. But you didn't accuse me of failing to use logic. On the contrary, you're saying that using logic (thus not committing fallacies) is pretentious. I strongly disagree on that.
To meet your scientific standards for proof, you demand that the proof must come from some institution that practices standard science, from a place you find acceptable like, for example, Harvard university or a corporate pharmaceutical lab.
Absolutely not. This is the equivalent of "Thomas Aquinas wrote it, therefore it's true". This is nothing more to an appeal to authority and it's definitely not the way it (should) work.
A proof is valid or invalid regardless of who writes it down. It's all about the process, not the people.
etc. you will reject as anecdotal despite the fact that a set of a thousand anecdotes is a higher form of proof than one anecdote about a spotting a Leprechaun in a pub.
100 anecdotes are more than 1 anecdote, but is it enough? How can we tell what was what each of those people actually saw? On the other hand, all you need is a skeleton, which is hard evidence that can be examined/verified.
How is it possible that thousands of credible witnesses
And by whom and how exactly was their credibility with regards to said testimonies ascertained?
are wrong (with more and more of them willing to risk their credibility by stating their names
Well, let's not exaggerate. Has for example anyone like been fired for claiming to have seen something that is not believed to exist at the time?
Again, was each and every witness either: A) Drunk B) Lying or C) Can’t tell the difference between a bear with four legs and a 9 foot tall humanoid with arms and legs that is throwing rocks at them.
Or perhaps it's an non-yet known animal and all that's left is for someone to find a skeleton for this to be conclusive. Surely those animals are not immortal.
“I WANT REAL PROOF”, you cry.
Yes.
Well, there are photos, and videos.
There are also real videos by army aircraft of unknown, unidentified and generally strange machines that fly near their location. That much has been established. The problem is to hop from that to "aliens". That's where proof is needed. Similarly for the Bigfoot issue.
However, when someone does find big clumps of unusual hair (not fur) and they try to submit it to a lab for genetic analysis MOST of those labs will reject that hair and will not test it.
Private labs don't like money?
Now why would anyone suppress the evidence for the existence of a large intelligent hominoid living in the extreme wilds of planet Earth?
Easy answer? Money.
No more clear cutting lumber, no more dirty oil exploration, no more national parks, etc.. We would have to grant these intelligent beings some land rights.
Actual humans don't get to have land rights when huge amounts of money is involved. Take a look at most wars, now and of the past, if in doubt. Plus, it's not like relocating people in other areas hasn't been done in massive scale before. Imagine now about an animal.
If you control the funding for acceptable science, you can control what science gets done AND you control what science gets released.
Of course, that's true. it's been going on since forever. People of high power always have had a shielding class of intelligentsia, be it in terms of religion or science. And as you'd denounce priest who bow to money instead of God, it isn't a surprise if I denounce scientists who bow to money instead of the pursuit of truth.
Ok, she (Pao)'s a horrible person who's done a ton of shit but in this situation, she didn't really claim anything shocking.
Suppose you hear that a well-connected billionaire is a criminal, because you hang around with the in crowd. What exactly are you going to do? Go talk to whom? And with what evidence?
Conscience exists in the sense that we have direct evidence of it. Like, you and I are currently discussing because we just wanted to. It wouldn't have been possible if we were both unconscious. So, we have direct proof of its existence.
That's trivial. The interesting part is "well, how does it work?". The answer is "we don't know yet, we have theories but no real proof for any of them".
So you see it in this case as well, only proof counts. It's not forbidden to say "I don't know yet".
Washington and Jackson must really be very low in your books.
Does it matter if they do it legally or illegally, as long as they succeed?
how?
Bribes, threats, extortion, the usual stuff.
That's a technicality :D
Dude, if you agree logic is elementary in nature, how can you also claim that actually using it is for posturing?
The idea of a honest discussion is to figure out things. Logic is the best tool for that. Otherwise, what is the point? Exchanging feelings?
Because he didn't agree with the suggested action. If you decide to burn and I don't agree to burn, a protest against your action would be to find some people and march to stop you. Not burning is simply the choice of action.