Show Posts

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 - Curiouser and Curiouser

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39
31
Where did you find out how high Hawking's IQ was?

Exactly. Yes, wise, where did you get this information from?

This topic belongs to Trump's negative politics. I to open this issue does not make me a part of the issue. I am definitely one of the furthest person to this thread hence opened it with all my courage. keep your personal problems with me or somebody else to the angry ranting.

"Why do you not support donald trump?" I gave answers. I can't help that you don't like them.

32
Favorite relevant meme:

Thank you for that!

33
Free healthcare isn't socialism, so maybe that will calm people down!

In 'Merka, that is definitely how it is viewed.

34
Where did you find out how high Hawking's IQ was?

Exactly. Yes, wise, where did you get this information from?

35
Honestly everyone in the US should be really pissed that you don't have universal healthcare and better free public hospitals. There would be no need of constant half measures that somewhat alleviate things. If everyone else can do it the US can do it too.

But we would then be susceptible to that horrific and deadly disease, "socialism." A fate worse than death to many true 'Merkins.

36
For some of the same reasons I don't support you.

Trump and wise both repeat over and over and over statements that are provable lies. (Trump: Over 10,000 false or misleading claims. Wise: Like a million.)

Trump and wise both self-aggrandize intelligence to an outrageous degree. (Trump: “Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it!" Wise: Claims IQ 20 points higher than Stephen Hawking)

Trump and wise both claim academic honors they don't deserve (Trump: Claims he graduated first in his class at Wharton, when GPA was less than 3.40. Wise: claims to be a Professor and Scientist.)

Trump and wise both attempt to belittle those they disagree with using infantile name-calling (Trump: Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, Pocahontas, Horseface, Psycho Joe, etc. Wise: rabinoz/fuckinoz, rabid'noz, and a hundred others used at various times in his ignore list signature graphic.)

37
It appears, at least, to not be blatantly self-serving in the way that the vast majority of his other policy decisions are.

He is, of course, absolutely positive that his executive order = transparency = market competition = "Pricing will come down by numbers that you wouldn't believe. The cost of healthcare will go way, way down." Because he has demonstrated that his thinking is always that simplistic. This is a complex market, and experts in these complex issues are split over whether it will lower prices at all, or raise them, much less "way, way down."

That's not to say that it won't help. It is certainly worth the effort to implement to see if it does. That is a good thing for Americans having to navigate the health care system.

If it doesn't work, he always has the out that HHS didn't implement it properly. And if it does work, despite it being a very complex problem that expert economists can't predict, he'll crow about how smart he is and how he did it all himself and knew absolutely that it would work.

But yes, this is a reasonable direction to try. I hope it works. I haven't the faintest idea if it will.

38
The poll presupposes that there is a single purpose. ("What is the purpose?" rather than "What is the primary purpose?" or "What are the purposes?")

Space Cowgirl has indicated correctly that all the items listed are purposes of the Society.

39
Flat Earth General / Re: How does the conspiracy work?
« on: June 24, 2019, 08:56:46 AM »

So climb down off your high horse ...


What a laugh coming from someone so fixated on correcting everyone else, commenting on every topic, and attempting to police other users. Your admonition is subject to the instant dismissal and ridicule it deserves.
Why not show where they are wrong in my opinion? Others are quite free to reject my opinion and some do.
Why shouldn't I comment on every topic I have an interest in? And I cannot police anybody.

Bye.
I didn't suggest that you should not express an opinion. I said that it was laughable that you call me off a high horse while expressing your opinion in the way you do. And you do attempt to police other users with your ubiquitous chastisements of others when you believe they are not properly discussing the topic given in the thread title.

Bye? If only.

40
Flat Earth General / Re: How does the conspiracy work?
« on: June 23, 2019, 08:28:30 PM »

So climb down off your high horse ...


What a laugh coming from someone so fixated on correcting everyone else, commenting on every topic, and attempting to police other users. Your admonition is subject to the instant dismissal and ridicule it deserves.

41
Flat Earth General / Re: How does the conspiracy work?
« on: June 21, 2019, 10:35:31 PM »
This thread is not in Complete Nonsense.

Apparently rabinoz considers the field of epistemology and the writings of Rene Descartes and John Locke to be complete nonsense,
Pretty much ;)!

Well, that's an opinion.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser
as well as the more current writings of Nick Bostrum. And in the popular dissemination of science, the recent article in Scientific American and 50% of Neil DeGrasse Tyson are complete nonsense as well.
And how many of those are simply interesting conjectures.


And how many of these are peer reviewed references by scholars with a grasp of epistemology that far exceeds yours?

    Boghossian, Paul. 1999. What the Externalist can Know A Priori. Philosophical Issues 9
    Brueckner, Anthony. 1986. Brains in a Vat. Journal of Philosophy 83: 148-67
    Brueckner, Anthony. 1992. If I am a Brain in a vat, then I am not a Brain in a Vat. Mind 101:123-128
    Burge, T. 1982. Other Bodies. In A. Woodfield. Ed., Thought and Object: Essays on Intentionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91-120.
    Casati, R. and Dokic J. 1991. Brains in a Vat, Language and Metalanguage. Analysis 51: 91-93.
    Collier, J. 1990. Could I Conceive Being a Brain in a Vat? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 68: 413-419.
    Davidson, Donald. 1986. “A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge,” in Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Davies, D. 1995. Putnam’s Thought-Teaser. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 25(2):203-227.
    Ebbs, G. (1992), “Skepticism, Objectivity and Brains in Vats”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 73
    Forbes, G. 1995. Realism and Skepticism: Brains in a Vat Revisited. Journal of Philosophy 92(4): 205-222
    Gaifman, Haim. 1994. Metaphysical Realism and Vats in a Brain. (unpublished ms)
    Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The View from Nowhere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Noonan, Harold. 1998. Reflections on Putnam, Wright and brains in a vat. Analysis 58:59-62
    Putnam, Hilary 1975. The Meaning of “Meaning.” Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    Putnam, Hilary. 1982. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Putnam, Hilary. 1994. Reply to Wright. In P. Clark and B. Hale, eds. Reading Putnam. Oxford, Blackwell.
    Sawyer, Sarah. 1999. My Language Disquotes. Analysis, vol. 59:3: 206-211
    Smith, P. (1984), Could We Be Brains in a Vat?, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 14
    Steinitz, Y. Brains in a vat? Different Perspectives. Philosophical Quarterly 44 (175): 213-222
    Tymoczko, T. 1989. In Defense of Putnam’s Brains. Philosophical Studies 57(3) 281-297
    Warfield, Ted. 1995. Knowing the World and Knowing our Minds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55 (3): 525-545.
    Weiss, B. 2000. Generalizing Brains in a Vat. Analysis 60: 112-123
    Wright, Crispin. 1994. On Putnam’s Proof that we cannot be brains in a vat. In P. Clark and B. Hale. Eds, Reading Putnam. Oxford: Blackwell.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser
Stay in your lane, mate.
Who allocated any "lanes" here, you?

I would think by now you would be familiar with a common slang phrase that does not literally refer to "lanes" but indicates that you are being reprimanded for expressing an opinion on a subject in which you lack sufficient expertise or knowledge. Which is the case here given what you've written.

In any case, even if we are in a simulation then that simulation is "our world" and in this simulation, our world is obviously a rotating Globe.

Very simple interpretation, and not the only one. "Obviously" is an easy word to toss into a conclusion to artificially support a position, less easy to justify. I suggest you do some reading on the subject of epistemology.

42
Flat Earth General / Re: How does the conspiracy work?
« on: June 21, 2019, 03:22:21 PM »

Are you serious with your:
Quote
You asked for a way it is possible for the earth to be flat without a conspiracy. If the earth is flat and you are a Brain In A Vat (see any number of online references if you are unfamiliar with this epistemological argument, or its modern equivalent Living In A Computer Simulation) and the perpetrator is a single individual, then it is not a conspiracy, which requires collaboration between more than one individual.

This thread is not in Complete Nonsense.

Apparently rabinoz considers the field of epistemology and the writings of Rene Descartes and John Locke to be complete nonsense, as well as the more current writings of Nick Bostrum. And in the popular dissemination of science, the recent article in Scientific American and 50% of Neil DeGrasse Tyson are complete nonsense as well.

Stay in your lane, mate.

43
Flat Earth General / Re: How does the conspiracy work?
« on: June 21, 2019, 10:48:00 AM »
If the earth is flat, then the conspiracy of politicians, scientists, astronomers, astronauts, space agencies, engineers, computer scientists, geoscientists, etc etc must be really really large.

But how do people get in this 'conspiracy'? How do people become 'part' of it? Will men in black show up and force you into it? And if there is a scientist interested in the truth, trying to do serious research - is he being told (when reaching a senior position) that all is a lie and now he/she must continue to lie? To create fake images, fake data?

How does this work?

There does not necessarily need to be a conspiracy.

This is addressed in:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81402.msg2174896#msg2174896

44
Flat Earth General / Re: The final question.
« on: June 21, 2019, 07:43:02 AM »

The second part of what you are saying is incorrect. You yourself proved that this observation is consistent with the 'globe model'.

The 'globe model' includes all wikipedia pages related to math, science, physics, biology, astronomy, geology etc. And you quoted the relevant part of that 'globe model' that explains the moon illusion. You explained that this observation is consistent with the 'globe model'.

Explaining why the moon illusion exists does not invalidate that it is an observation.


No, but the explanation shows why that observation is consistent with regular science (aka “the globe model”).


It's a pretty large leap to go from alex314's "the globe model is represented in these specific wikipedia pages, etc." to "the globe model is all of wikipedia, or all of regular science." But he did. And so, apparently do you.


Same with a causal observer looking at the sun.  The reason it may appear bigger overhead than on the horizon is glare, which is perfectly constant with the model.

Just because an observation appears inconsistent at first glance (literally in this case), doesn’t make it’s actually inconstant.

The fact that glare can be removed from the equation with appropriate solar filters doesn’t invalidate the previous observation, or move the goal posts.  It does However show that the original observation was consistent with the model in the first place.


But that's not what he asked. He asked for an example of "an observation that shows an inconsistency." That observation may drive the observer to further investigate why it is inconsistent, and what other observations should be made to align with another set of observations. But it most certainly does not show that the first observation is consistent with the model. It is the very reason of its inconsistency that drives one to make other observations, and other conclusions based on the other observations.


It funny to read all this here, where ludicrous unjustified excuses are thrown around to try to explain why things like position of the sun are so far removed from where they should be on flat earth “models”.

Yes, I find it funny that people like alex314 come in and with an extremely poorly crafted argument and an overly dramatic offer to bet his life, and assume they can swoop in with a "gotcha" proof and that they won't be called on their hubris.

45
Flat Earth General / Re: The final question.
« on: June 21, 2019, 02:22:00 AM »

The second part of what you are saying is incorrect. You yourself proved that this observation is consistent with the 'globe model'.

The 'globe model' includes all wikipedia pages related to math, science, physics, biology, astronomy, geology etc. And you quoted the relevant part of that 'globe model' that explains the moon illusion. You explained that this observation is consistent with the 'globe model'.

Explaining why the moon illusion exists does not invalidate that it is an observation.

And are you sure you want to use Wikipedia as the definitive arbiter of your reality?

46
Flat Earth General / Re: The final question.
« on: June 21, 2019, 01:48:18 AM »

That observation is not inconsistent with the "globe model." You yourself showed that the observation of the Moon Illusion is consistent with the 'globe model'.

Are you being sarcastic? Are you messing with me?

You seem to think that I'm arguing whether the earth is a globe or is flat.

I'm not.

I'm addressing the incredibly poorly worded question you posed:

   I bet my life that this question cannot be answered.
   Can you please describe one observable phenomena that I can easy observe myself, and that is inconsistent to the 'globe model'?
   'globe model': for example explained in wikipedia

I described an observation that many people have made, and that you can yourself. The moon appears larger on the horizon than high in the sky. That is an observation. It is an illusion, but it is still an observation. That observation is inconsistent with the globe model's assertion that the actual angular size of the moon is essentially unchanged.

You did not specify that the 'globe model' included all aspects of human perception, including optical illusions.

47
Flat Earth General / Re: The final question.
« on: June 21, 2019, 01:25:45 AM »
so far 3:1 alex.
i think you lose

These discussions are not about winning or losing. They should be objective discussions about the truth, science and knowledge!

It's nice that you have an opinion regarding what these discussions should be about. Just because you hold an opinion about it does not dictate what it should be, nor compel others to hold that same opinion.

48
Flat Earth General / Re: The final question.
« on: June 21, 2019, 01:21:16 AM »
At mid-day, quickly glance at the sun in a cloudless, hazeless sky.

As the sun is setting (nominally horizontal horizon, not just going behind tall Swiss mountains), look at the sun.

Sun at mid-day looks larger than sun at sunset.

That is a single, easily observed observation, using no equipment, requiring no travel (other than going to a location where you can view a nominally horizontal sunset) that is inconsistent with the globe model.

Yes I did that observation many times, even with equipment (yes, I have a telescope). And the apparent size of the sun does not change during a day. I have observed it many many times. I bet my life on that fact!

You asked for a single example of an observation that is inconsistent with the globe model.

I gave you a specific example.

yes, about the angular diameter of the sun

No. The observation is the perceived angular diameter of the sun by a casual observer.

Quote

You then changed my example to a different observation (using a telescope).

Why is this a change? I can use a telescope, but I do not need to. With and without a telescope I have observed many times that the angular diameter of the sun and the moon does not change over the day.


It is a change because you asked for an observation. I gave you an observation specifically with no equipment. You added equipment. That is a change. Note that my observation is not to make a precise measurement of the angular diameter of the sun, by what is observed in the conditions given.

Quote

Please note that I specifically did not give the example of measuring the angular diameter of the sun with a telescope, solar filter, and reticle. Using the naked eye, the mid-day sun will be observed to be larger than the sunset sun because of glare, photopic response, and the inability to look at the mid-day sun for long enough to accurately judge its size.

But I want to really know if the size is changing. So I use some tools in addition, to get a better result.

Does it change or not? Can I trust my eyes? Can I make more precise measurements?


That's what you want. Fine. It's not what I want, nor what you originally asked for.

Quote

You then in a subsequent post say you can use the moon as well; same thing.

That has nothing to do with the original example observation, and you make an illogical leap based on your own biases.

I will play along, however and use your own example.

People have observed since ancient times that when viewing the moon with the naked eye and no instrumentation, the moon looks larger when on the horizon than high in the sky. (Using your preferred method of reference, Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion)

That in an observation that many, many, many people have made.

That observation is inconsistent with the "globe model."


That observation is NOT inconsistent with the 'globe model' as you have showed yourself. I consider wikipedia as a detailed description of the 'globe model'. And you use a link FROM THAT MODEL that explains the 'moon illusion'. It is part of the 'globe model' It is consistent with the globe model, as it is described in the 'globe model'.


Please point out where the Moon illusion is referenced in the links you gave as a definition of the globe model:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Quote

You will, of course, attempt to argue that the measured angular diameter of the sun and moon do not significantly change during the day. That is irrelevant to the request you made which was to provide an example of an easily made observation that is inconsistent with the globe model.

Which I have done.

Here you are incorrect. Everyone can see that

The moon illusion is an observation that many, many, many people have made.

That observation is inconsistent with the "globe model."

You asked a question. I can't help it that the question you asked was not the question you wanted answered.

49
Flat Earth General / Re: The final question.
« on: June 21, 2019, 12:16:31 AM »
At mid-day, quickly glance at the sun in a cloudless, hazeless sky.

As the sun is setting (nominally horizontal horizon, not just going behind tall Swiss mountains), look at the sun.

Sun at mid-day looks larger than sun at sunset.

That is a single, easily observed observation, using no equipment, requiring no travel (other than going to a location where you can view a nominally horizontal sunset) that is inconsistent with the globe model.

Yes I did that observation many times, even with equipment (yes, I have a telescope). And the apparent size of the sun does not change during a day. I have observed it many many times. I bet my life on that fact!

You asked for a single example of an observation that is inconsistent with the globe model.

I gave you a specific example.

You then changed my example to a different observation (using a telescope).

Please note that I specifically did not give the example of measuring the angular diameter of the sun with a telescope, solar filter, and reticle. Using the naked eye, the mid-day sun will be observed to be larger than the sunset sun because of glare, photopic response, and the inability to look at the mid-day sun for long enough to accurately judge its size.

You then in a subsequent post say you can use the moon as well; same thing.

That has nothing to do with the original example observation, and you make an illogical leap based on your own biases.

I will play along, however and use your own example.

People have observed since ancient times that when viewing the moon with the naked eye and no instrumentation, the moon looks larger when on the horizon than high in the sky. (Using your preferred method of reference, Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion)

That in an observation that many, many, many people have made.

That observation is inconsistent with the "globe model."

You will, of course, attempt to argue that the measured angular diameter of the sun and moon do not significantly change during the day. That is irrelevant to the request you made which was to provide an example of an easily made observation that is inconsistent with the globe model.

Which I have done.

50
Flat Earth General / Re: The final question.
« on: June 20, 2019, 05:03:20 PM »
At mid-day, quickly glance at the sun in a cloudless, hazeless sky.

As the sun is setting (nominally horizontal horizon, not just going behind tall Swiss mountains), look at the sun.

Sun at mid-day looks larger than sun at sunset.

That is a single, easily observed observation, using no equipment, requiring no travel (other than going to a location where you can view a nominally horizontal sunset) that is inconsistent with the globe model.

51
Also should have pointed out:

They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!"

WTF?

52

I hope you've been informed about Trump's pledge to go back to the moon within 5 years.
Going back to the moon + Trump's absolute incompetence tells me you should give half of your comments a second thought before posting here..... ::)


Speaking of Trump and the Moon:

Twitter [May 13, 2019 04:34:50 PM] Under my Administration, we are restoring @NASA to greatness and we are going back to the Moon, then Mars. I am updating my budget to include an additional $1.6 billion so that we can return to Space in a BIG WAY!

Twitter [Jun 7, 2019 12:38:01 PM]  For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!


53
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48560874

Nasa is to allow tourists to visit the International Space Station from 2020, priced at $35,000 (£27,500) per night.

The cost to stay is trivial compared to the taxi fare to get there.

54
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trumpthiness
« on: June 07, 2019, 09:12:01 AM »
http://www.magapill.com/

LOL,  suck it up Alberto,  I bet you think Mexico is going to pay the Tariffs.   

Just curious,  are you a white male without a college degree?   Asking for a friend.

Why does it matter what race or education level I am?

There you go. Question answered.

I don't know about you, but I don't judge people on their race or education level or anything, I judge a man by his character.



1. Why do you think that JerkFace asking questions about the factual nature of your race or education level amounts to "judging" you?
2. What do you mean by "judging" in this context? It can have many shades of meaning that span a wide range from "coming to an opinion or conclusion based on evidence" to "unfairly and hastily coming to a negatively biased opinion based on superficial, trivial, or irrelevant factors."
3. It is appropriate to judge people based on race or education level when what you are judging is directly tied those factors. For example, if I'm tasked with: "Please go into the next room where you don't know anyone and find my friend Henry. He's black." I will go into the next room and attempt to judge the people there based on race. What is unacceptable is to make a judgement about an unrelated topic (fitness for a job, whether they will be a good tenant, whether they are a rapist or not) based on those factors.
4. You don't judge people on their race or education level or anything? Anything? You form no conclusions whatsoever of people except presumably through their character? I don't think you've thought this through very well. You're saying "I judge a man only by his character."
5. You judge everything about a man by his character? You judge a man's intelligence by his character? You judge a man's ability to throw a basketball or build a fence by his character? You judge a man's health by his character? I think all you have done is heard this tired, trite catchphrase and adopted it without thinking.
6. If you wanted to say "I don't judge people's character on their race or education level or anything else, I judge a man's character by his character." then I am 100% with you. But that tautology is obvious.
7. And of course, this would be funny if it weren't so sad. Please judge Donald Trump's character through the evidence of his character.

I hope you know Boydster and I were just talking smack with each other.

I don't see Boydster anywhere in the above quote train.

You either stand by your statement about how you judge a man or you don't.

If you do, then my reply applies.

If you don't, it says something about your character.

It sounds suspiciously like someone else, who when backed into a corner about flippant statements that were indefensible, replies "It's only a joke."

55
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth CubeSat
« on: June 07, 2019, 08:57:58 AM »
why don't you start to design and built an exclusive CubeSat for the Flat Earth Society to prove all of your theory?

What are the functions of your imagined CubeSat that you think will prove "all the theory"?

56
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trumpthiness
« on: June 06, 2019, 10:20:05 PM »
http://www.magapill.com/

LOL,  suck it up Alberto,  I bet you think Mexico is going to pay the Tariffs.   

Just curious,  are you a white male without a college degree?   Asking for a friend.

Why does it matter what race or education level I am?

There you go. Question answered.

I don't know about you, but I don't judge people on their race or education level or anything, I judge a man by his character.



1. Why do you think that JerkFace asking questions about the factual nature of your race or education level amounts to "judging" you?
2. What do you mean by "judging" in this context? It can have many shades of meaning that span a wide range from "coming to an opinion or conclusion based on evidence" to "unfairly and hastily coming to a negatively biased opinion based on superficial, trivial, or irrelevant factors."
3. It is appropriate to judge people based on race or education level when what you are judging is directly tied those factors. For example, if I'm tasked with: "Please go into the next room where you don't know anyone and find my friend Henry. He's black." I will go into the next room and attempt to judge the people there based on race. What is unacceptable is to make a judgement about an unrelated topic (fitness for a job, whether they will be a good tenant, whether they are a rapist or not) based on those factors.
4. You don't judge people on their race or education level or anything? Anything? You form no conclusions whatsoever of people except presumably through their character? I don't think you've thought this through very well. You're saying "I judge a man only by his character."
5. You judge everything about a man by his character? You judge a man's intelligence by his character? You judge a man's ability to throw a basketball or build a fence by his character? You judge a man's health by his character? I think all you have done is heard this tired, trite catchphrase and adopted it without thinking.
6. If you wanted to say "I don't judge people's character on their race or education level or anything else, I judge a man's character by his character." then I am 100% with you. But that tautology is obvious.
7. And of course, this would be funny if it weren't so sad. Please judge Donald Trump's character through the evidence of his character.

57
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trumpthiness
« on: June 06, 2019, 01:56:22 PM »
http://www.magapill.com/

LOL,  suck it up Alberto,  I bet you think Mexico is going to pay the Tariffs.   

Just curious,  are you a white male without a college degree?   Asking for a friend.

Why does it matter what race or education level I am?

There you go. Question answered.

58
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trumpthiness
« on: June 04, 2019, 03:07:35 PM »
Hmmm. The direction of this discussion has veered from my original intent, which was a comment on the gullibility and lack of critical thinking of the American public when presented with constant repetition of falsehood, rather than the impetus.

At least you're getting an example of gullibility and lack critical thinking!

Well, I guess if you don't like Trump you can give me the extra money in your paychecks and/or tax returns from his tax cuts....

Sure. Let me know where to send you the invoice for all that "extra" money removed from my accounts.

I don't know about you, but I got more back this year than last year. And made pretty much the same.

That's the problem with simplistic arguments; assuming that if it's OK for me, it must be OK for everyone else. Assuming everyone else's situations are pretty much the same. My income went up by 7%, my federal taxes by more than 17%. Marginal tax rate increased from last year by 9%. Just depends on circumstances, and not everyone benefits.

59
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trumpthiness
« on: June 04, 2019, 02:20:02 PM »
Hmmm. The direction of this discussion has veered from my original intent, which was a comment on the gullibility and lack of critical thinking of the American public when presented with constant repetition of falsehood, rather than the impetus.

At least you're getting an example of gullibility and lack critical thinking!

Well, I guess if you don't like Trump you can give me the extra money in your paychecks and/or tax returns from his tax cuts....

Sure. Let me know where to send you the invoice for all that "extra" money removed from my accounts.

60

We know vaccines include many metals aim to make public sick.
...
Do not get vaccinate and prevent it from being made.

Your silly liitle game of flat earth vs round earth doesn't really matter to your essentially trivial life.

But this actually is important. If you follow this folly, I hope your children don't suffer or die from easily preventable diseases.

I know the effects of the vaccine because I live with a lot of experience people around me. I'm not dreaming. And I am not an emotional man, just I move on the facts I live on.

I take it back. I hope all your children die (but at least not in horrible pain and suffering, like many who die of diseases preventable by vaccines) so that your DNA is taken out of the gene pool, and so you don't raise a litter of spawn as ignorant as you.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39