So one of my friends posted a 5-minute Youtube video titled "Liberals vs. Conservatives".
I clicked it. It started:
"Someone asked me to make an honest video about the differences between liberals and conservatives, to show that neither side is evil, they just have different solutions to the same problems. Sorry, I can't help you there, because really both are the same."
I closed the tab.
surely you were curious about what tired, cynical excuses for apathy and disengagement they could produce!
0
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
It was a policy and any reasonable person would conclude, looking at it, that murder would be the result. It was a murderous policy.
:bz
It seems particularly silly to call it his policy too since it'd been going on for a few years before obama was even elected.
He's still responsible for it, though. The buck stops here, and all.
Sure, but it seems kinda silly to list Medicaid and women's suffrage as his policies just because he hasn't stopped them.
He drastically expanded Medicaid under the ACA. Hell, that was another one of the major points of contention at the SCOTUS hearing for some crazy reason. Because apparently since State's really like getting free monies it is coercive to offer them more free monies with different strings attached.
Not sure what you're talking about with suffrage aside from DOJ caring about the VRA again.
I was trying to be hyperbolic by referring to ancient policies he wasn't involved in enacting, like the 19th amendment
Obama's uncle was driving around drunk, was caught, and had his driver's license taken away. But he has made the case that he can't easily travel to his job working at a liquor store and was granted a new license. Hardship licenses are hard to get, according to the conservative talking head, and the uncle is already facing deportation.
And dick Cheney got a heart transplant despite not having a pulse. See the problem is if people try to keep tarnishing the image of Obama they are gonna find themselves already beaten there all the gung ho yes we can types are disillusioned by now they still aren't gonna go for a silver spoon suit.
So one of my friends posted a 5-minute Youtube video titled "Liberals vs. Conservatives".
I clicked it. It started:
"Someone asked me to make an honest video about the differences between liberals and conservatives, to show that neither side is evil, they just have different solutions to the same problems. Sorry, I can't help you there, because really both are the same."
I closed the tab.
surely you were curious about what tired, cynical excuses for apathy and disengagement they could produce!
I read your post, but keep in mind that if you edit a post to include the @, it will not send a notification.
I will spoiler my quick response for the sake of [chat.]
You seem to be conceiving of a universe that contains causal and non-causal systems in a horizontal manner - as in, spatially distinct, or distinct as entities - when most such conceptions are instead portrayed as being vertical, where the microcosmic is non-causal but the macrocosmic is causal. This has similar problems but avoids the inherent wackiness of billiard ball A being causal and Newtonian while billiard ball B is non-causal and flickers in and out of existence and is sometimes a duck.
To explain what I mean by verticality in this instance, I propose a model: picture two bits of data, each of which has its state determined not by causes, but in a non-causal, arbitrary fashion, though they can be measured statistically. Bit A and bit B each have a 75% chance of having a value of 1, and a 25% chance of having a value of 0.
Let's say that events depend on the values of these bits, i.e. they are in a causal relationship with these bits. We can successfully make statistical predictions of those events based on our statistical knowledge of likelihoods and probabilities, measured by empirical means, and construct causal systems on top of them, but at their root they are non-causal; nothing makes the bit 0 or 1. It just is so.
I suppose you could argue that something causes those probabilities to exist, those 75%s and 25%s, but the interpretations of quantum uncertainty that suggest "it's not actually random, we just don't understand what's causing it yet" do not seem very popular. Such a cause for those probabilities may not exist. Since our understanding of what it means for a thing to "exist" breaks down to some extent at that level, it would not surprise me if our concept of what it means for a thing to "cause" or "be caused" also breaks down. It is also entirely possible that we would simply have to grasp a different kind of causality than "if X, then Y" as we know it macrocosmically. Certainly the microcosmic has its own indelible logic and obeys rules.
I suppose I am saying that you can suggest the arbitrary, uncaused nature of a determining element within a causal system, and it does not actually cause any greater problems than simply suggesting a completely causal system. You still end up saying "what's causing that determining element?", whether it's the uncaused level of reality, or the first cause that is the origin point of all cause. You also get into the metaphysical problems of the nature of "rules" which "govern" reality either way. So I don't think there is an inherent problem with saying the universe is partially cause-and-effect, and partially not - atleast, no more so than there is in saying it is entirely cause-and-effect.
Short reply: Causality can't "arise" out of a non-causal system. If you make a macro / micro distinction, the macro will be founded upon the micro. If micro isn't causal, then macro can't be causal.
If there is no causality at the micro level, then there is no causality at the macro level.
If the state of X is completely non-causally random, and the state of X causes the state of Y, and then A, B and C are all caused by the state of Y, and so on, what would you call that? there would be a non-causal entity exerting causal force on "normal," causal entities. or would you deny that it is even possible, and if so, why?
I'd call that the cosmological argument. There is a first cause, that is self-caused, which then causes everything else.
That's fine and sensible. So, if you're talking about "God" as the one unmoved mover who started the proverbial ball rolling? That's fine.
But I took you to be talking about multiple unmoved movers over a long span of time. And that's...it's fine if we don't have continuity in the proposed universe, so that at every time moment a completely new universe is created by a new unmoved mover...and completely new time, come to think of it. But I didn't take you to be describing that sort of thing.
0
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
0
BobCescaIs a girlBirmingham, UKRegistered Userregular
As his squad distracted the third machine gunner, Inouye crawled toward the final bunker, eventually drawing within 10 yards. As he raised himself up and cocked his arm to throw his last grenade into the fighting position, a German inside fired a rifle grenade that struck him on the right elbow, severing most of his arm and leaving his own primed grenade reflexively "clenched in a fist that suddenly didn't belong to me anymore". Inouye's horrified soldiers moved to his aid, but he shouted for them to keep back out of fear his severed fist would involuntarily relax and drop the grenade. As the German inside the bunker reloaded his rifle, Inouye managed to pry the live grenade from his useless right hand and transfer it to his left. As the German aimed his rifle to finish him off, Inouye managed at last to toss the grenade off-hand into the bunker and destroy it. He stumbled to his feet and continued forward, silencing the last German resistance with a one-handed burst from his Thompson before being wounded in the leg and tumbling unconscious to the bottom of the ridge. When he awoke to see the concerned men of his platoon hovering over him, his only comment before being carried away was to gruffly order them return to their positions, since, as he pointed out, "nobody called off the war!"
This guy is a Senator. I wish my senator was that bad ass.
So, I was thinking about it the other day, and the multiple universe interpretation of quantum mechanics makes the most sense to me by far.
I think of it like this: the universe is deterministic, but it's deterministic backwards in time only. The notion is that the when you look at the universe moving backwards in time each state only ever has one possible state that it can progress to, but any state has multiple (but finite) possible states that it could have come from. This is to say, whatever rules that the universe operates off of work going backwards and aren't reversible, so while at any state if you have the total description of the present state you also have the total description of all the past states but you do not have a description of the future.
In a sense, we could be thought to be moving backwards, relative to the laws of the universe.
edit: also if you want technically solid fast and complex drumming in that vein you'd go to scandinavia to the likes of tomas haake or hellhamer (jan axel blomberg)
dlinfiniti on
AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
0
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
Posts
surely you were curious about what tired, cynical excuses for apathy and disengagement they could produce!
I was trying to be hyperbolic by referring to ancient policies he wasn't involved in enacting, like the 19th amendment
twitch.tv/tehsloth
And dick Cheney got a heart transplant despite not having a pulse. See the problem is if people try to keep tarnishing the image of Obama they are gonna find themselves already beaten there all the gung ho yes we can types are disillusioned by now they still aren't gonna go for a silver spoon suit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD_ybaXhXno
Mandonna forever.
Oh... oh man. :^:
I'd call that the cosmological argument. There is a first cause, that is self-caused, which then causes everything else.
That's fine and sensible. So, if you're talking about "God" as the one unmoved mover who started the proverbial ball rolling? That's fine.
But I took you to be talking about multiple unmoved movers over a long span of time. And that's...it's fine if we don't have continuity in the proposed universe, so that at every time moment a completely new universe is created by a new unmoved mover...and completely new time, come to think of it. But I didn't take you to be describing that sort of thing.
We've known that since 2008.
Obama collects Spider Man and Conan the Barbarian.
Obviously he favors the dark cycle because of his secret Muslim black liberation christianity
Now you just need a japanese body pillow of a scared little cartoon girl, and you're good to go.
Some of those things, I would honestly be embarrassed to own. Same reason I would never buy Dance in the Vampire Bund. No way, no how.
*google*
Oh. Anime.
Man, it's like everyone is at a party and not on [chat]
< Offended
Hello Bob.
I am trying a new type of tea. It came in a packet and is a powder. Just add water, what could go wrong?
nuh uh
This guy is a Senator. I wish my senator was that bad ass.
*Daniel Inouye
I think you meant, Blade Runner. That's just me.
Depends how powdery the powder is.
Rwandan tea is more a powder than leaves, but is perhaps one of the best teas I have ever had.
I think of it like this: the universe is deterministic, but it's deterministic backwards in time only. The notion is that the when you look at the universe moving backwards in time each state only ever has one possible state that it can progress to, but any state has multiple (but finite) possible states that it could have come from. This is to say, whatever rules that the universe operates off of work going backwards and aren't reversible, so while at any state if you have the total description of the present state you also have the total description of all the past states but you do not have a description of the future.
In a sense, we could be thought to be moving backwards, relative to the laws of the universe.
yesssssss
Totally didn't hear that my first play through. Laughing so hard right now.
its YY ZED
You only love us for our oil!
Negative. It's your Beer, Thinking Tuques, and ridiculously hot women.
Lubrication can be found in other regions of the planet.
Damn terrorist sheep.
No one has come forward to take responsibility.
I fucking hate rush and neil pert -- or however you spell his name -- in particular
drum solos are more than just playing this fast and getting more complicated and stopping
this is a real drum solo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6i4YAe11Y
Three minutes later that solder was sound asleep.
no way
zz-top cover guy is the best drummer
edit: also if you want technically solid fast and complex drumming in that vein you'd go to scandinavia to the likes of tomas haake or hellhamer (jan axel blomberg)