This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 323334 3536 ... 502
991
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:37:35 AM »
I mean, just look at the original post on Bnet you linked to: You can demonstrate the non-existence of a certain thing, depending upon its supposed empirical content.
[. . .]
Oh, I should also say "prove", in this instances, means "demonstrate the probability of". You can't prove anything.
992
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:35:12 AM »
you literally cannot prove that there's not
The only way for this to be true is if there are innumerable corollaries added to the original proposition as to make both the negative and the positive of it utterly un-provable in the first place. Let's not use a unicorn, which is a bad subject. Think of a bear. You could say "There's a bear in my living room!" and I could conduct a thorough search of your living to prove the negative that there is no bear there. You could then say "The bear can turn temporarily invisible" so I pull out infrared cameras etc. and we could go to the point where what you're defining is no longer a bear, and you could never ever prove that it was there in the first place given all these ridiculous additions. The problem isn't that we're discussing negative vs. positive proposition, but propositions that make sense vs. ones that do not.
993
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:31:19 AM »
the unicorn could be invisible and ethereal
At which point I would fall back on epistemic noncognitivism, and claim that something defined entirely with non-empirical metaphysics is functionally meaningless, making the proposition void in the first instance. The fact that you can't prove the negative of an ethereal unicorn is just the flip-side of also not being able to prove the positive of it.
995
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:24:56 AM »
I can just apply Hitchen's razor and call it a day.
Hitchen's Razor only says unsupported assertions can be dismissed. If somebody makes a supported assertion, the onus switches to the individual dismissing the supported claim. EDIT: There's also a pretty massive epistemic distance between saying "God does not exist", which would give you a pretty significant onus, and saying "there is no good reason to believe God exists", which would give you an onus no bigger than having to nullify the arguments for the opposition. EDIT II: I also don't see why you think you can't prove a negative; the only difference between a negative and positive proposition is framing. A true negative is literally just the proven negation of a false positive. If you claim there is a unicorn in your shed, and I investigate your shed, I have proven a negative.
996
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:22:14 AM »
and the only person cheeky enough to claim otherwise is Meta. literally wat
you've argued many times that it's possible to prove a negative, which would technically nullify any burden of proof out there
"There is no unicorn in my shed". Excuse me while I go prove this.
997
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:21:52 AM »
Nevertheless, no it's not a fallacy to point out that somebody bears the onus when making a claim. It isn't anybody else's obligation to support the claims made by other people--they may be lazy if they don't look into--but when considering whether or not an argument is good heavily depends on how well the onus has been satisfied. Why would it work any other way?
And you can, quite easily, prove a negative.
998
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:18:56 AM »
and the only person cheeky enough to claim otherwise is Meta. literally wat
999
« on: August 31, 2016, 08:07:53 AM »
1000
« on: August 31, 2016, 06:01:05 AM »
I'm kind of enjoying running with an unscoped Gewehr.
Apparently the difference the Tankgewehr makes against armoured vehicles is game changing; hopefully they release a patch to fix the shitty class levelling system.
1001
« on: August 31, 2016, 04:37:03 AM »
the man has a point
1002
« on: August 31, 2016, 04:23:45 AM »
nevermind, cant play it because origin keeps crashing
goddamn origin is a piece of shit
1003
« on: August 31, 2016, 03:59:41 AM »
imma give it a go again and hope i hate it because i have nothing unlocked
1004
« on: August 31, 2016, 03:47:01 AM »
Ross Perot, though? Goddayum. What the hell did he do to get that much?
Populism. Railed against NAFTA, exposed fears about the deficit, promised to end the outsourcing of jobs, promised to take a tougher line against crime and was opposed to gun control. He's half the reason Clinton turned out to be a law-and-order deficit hawk.
1005
« on: August 30, 2016, 06:29:22 PM »
Roosevelt also got like 30pc, but that was back in 1912.
1006
« on: August 30, 2016, 06:27:24 PM »
Highest a third party has ever got up to, IIRC, was Ralph Nader in 2000, with 2.7%.
George Wallace got 13pc in 1968, and Ross Perot got 19pc in 1992.
1007
« on: August 30, 2016, 06:24:15 PM »
I'm not sure the exact percentage. It is indeed five percent. Ask Verb, he's shilling for Jill to hit that threshold.
For somebody so violently pessimistic, Verb has his utopian idiosyncracies.
1008
« on: August 30, 2016, 04:21:16 PM »
did i miss something
1009
« on: August 30, 2016, 04:16:52 PM »
BHLThe Department of Justice report seems to provide enough evidence to justify ending federal contracting with private prison firms.
But the gaps it identifies between public and private prisons are very, very much smaller than the gaps between the American public carceral state and either a) normal conditions (including the prevalence of incarceration itself) in other liberal democracies, or b) a morally tolerable and decent state of affairs.
And DOJ– through the US Attorneys, through the Bureau of Prisons– is itself an actor in that morally intolerable state of affairs. So I can’t help but see an element of deflecting blame in deciding to start with the particular symptom that is intolerable private prisons. If DOJ and the administration wanted to seriously address the crisis of the carceral state, they could end the directive to US Attorneys to seek maximum sentences, to take just one example. But that would involve acknowledging their own institutional responsibility.
Private prisons hold <10% of all prisoners in the correctional system. (The separate immigrant detention system is more heavily private, and also terrible.) Private prison firms have been followers, not leaders, in the growth of mass incarceration (see this chart, via). They have been profiting from misery and injustice, and I certainly don’t feel any pain for their shareholders today. And they have sometimes, as documented in the DOJ report, been the proximate cause of misery and injustice. But they are not the ultimate cause of it, and there’s a real limit to how much credit DOJ gets for acting against one outside actor profiting on a wicked system that it continues to oversee.
The United States imprisons more people than any other country in the world, including the billion-person Communist dictatorship in China. And today’s announcement won’t change that, at all.
1010
« on: August 30, 2016, 03:22:32 PM »
So I fixed the issue.
And I hate it. The gunplay is just boring, there's no point whatsoever to the medic or support classes, and snipers just dominate the game. Horses are fucking OP too.
1011
« on: August 30, 2016, 01:05:17 PM »
And it's literally unplayable.
The game just repeats my first input and I lose all control. Press W at the start of the match to get going? Keep walking forward, not able to shoot or even look around. Spawned in a tank and hit E, just kept getting out and back in again.
Fuck sake.
1012
« on: August 30, 2016, 12:25:52 PM »
naturally I'll be Support main
my nigger
1013
« on: August 30, 2016, 11:49:17 AM »
HOLY FUCK ITS INSTALLING
1014
« on: August 30, 2016, 11:48:17 AM »
G2A
Thanks for being "pro consumer" with a developer scam site
wat
1015
« on: August 30, 2016, 11:29:31 AM »
NINETY
PERCENT
COMPLETE
1016
« on: August 30, 2016, 11:28:46 AM »
#CruzMissile#StandWithRand
From who?
 HOW YOU GONNA SHOOT ME DOWN WHEN I GUIDE THE ROCKET
1017
« on: August 30, 2016, 11:25:34 AM »
Bioshock is currently £3 and Bioshock 2 is £2 on G2A. Bioshock Infinite is £4.31.
Oh, and the whole collection is like £8.
Just so nobody spends more than they need to.
1018
« on: August 30, 2016, 10:21:18 AM »
- Reuters
- The BBC (occasionally)
- Chicago Booth Review (10/10 would recommend)
- Bank of England blog
- LSE blogs
- NIESR
- NPR (occasionally)
- Brookings
1019
« on: August 30, 2016, 09:43:58 AM »
He just swung my vote.
From who?
1020
« on: August 30, 2016, 08:44:40 AM »
Currently downloading it.
Anybody know what the game's RAM usage is like?
Pages: 1 ... 323334 3536 ... 502
|
Show Posts