|
Serious question, inspired by the above picture: Are any people who self-identify as liberals actually claiming to be tolerant anymore?
I feel as though this is an old idea which those of us not on the extreme-left of the spectrum refuse to let go of. |
2.4 equals 2 when using one significant digit. This is what you have to get into your head.
“But 2.4 does not equal 2...” (Read with an annoying squeaky voice) But it does. Every measurement we do has rounding errors. In Physics (also Engineering and other fields), when we say “2” of a measure, it means anything between 1.5 and 2.5. When we say 2.0 it means anything between 1.95 and 2.05, and so on. So, the whole quote is “2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2”. This is what he means, he is referring to rounding errors. I know this because this is what physicists and engineers mean when they say this. It’s an inside joke, it’s funny if you understand it. I have created a corollary (so to speak) of this joke.
If you take two objects with masses 2.27868 kg and 2.41901 kg (measured to 6 significant digits), and measure their masses with a digital scale that has a 1 kg resolution, the reading will be 2 kg for each of the individual objects. If you put both on the scale at the same time, the reading will be 5 kg, so 2+2=5 in this scenario. “But 2+2=4 follows from the axioms of arithmetic!” says Dr. Craig, as the joke flies way over his tiny apologist head. Yes, the axioms of arithmetic are true, but you are not thinking like a physicist or an engineer. When we measure things in nature there are no integers, only when we count things. You can have an integer number of bottles of water, not of liters. Nothing that we measure has an exact value, every measure involves some type of rounding error (and other errors). This is the answer, this is exactly what he means, I really hope this cleared things up for you. If you respond with “but 2.27868 does not equal 2” or something like that one more time, I will have to conclude that you don’t want to know the answer to the question, you just want to have pointless arguments. As for why he is saying this on the debate, I don’t know. I would have to watch the whole debate to give a good answer, and I don’t know if I can stand another Craig debate. Always the same recycled old arguments, always pompous sounding while posing arguments begging the question or arguments from ignorance, no matter how many times his arguments are debunked, he acts as if they are sound and good. You can’t define something into existence, Dr Craig! The following are just guesses. Maybe it’s just a joke to the physicists and other STEM folks who will watch the debate and might get it. I smile every time I hear that joke. Maybe he is trying to show just how utterly ignorant on the matter of Physics and Mathematics Craig really is. If so, it worked. On his reply, Craig showed how he is unable to think like a physicist even for a second. Maybe he is baiting Craig with a quote that Krauss knows Craig might later cherry pick, quote only the “2+2=5” part, remove the context and the “for very large values of 2” part (a fundamental part of the joke) and go around saying that Krauss said 2+2=5. Then Krauss will be able to point out just how utterly dishonest Craig is. If so, it worked, just watch the video. https://www.quora.com/What-does-Lawr...-he-says-2+2-5 |
Back in the early 80’s, I was in charge of managing man-day budgets on a huge construction project. Our info system only dealt in whole days, even though we reported our time in hours. It truncated, rather than rounded, so 15 hours showed up as 1 day, when it was really 1.875 days. The project was staffed about 60% with engineers - just imagine the hilarity every month when a half dozen Lead Engineers would get a report showing that 3+3+3=11. I think they suspected me of trying to “Gaslight” them. |
Originally Posted by xturner
(Post 1503916)
I think they suspected me of trying to “Gaslight” them.
Because that's all anybody is allowed to talk about right now. Internet rule 12-R. https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...70&oe=5C523276 |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1503904)
Serious question, inspired by the above picture: Are any people who self-identify as liberals actually claiming to be tolerant anymore?
I feel as though this is an old idea which those of us not on the extreme-left of the spectrum refuse to let go of. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1503942)
i believe they referred to themselves as "intellectual liberal"...
(serious reply, btw.) I restate the question: which representative of the group commonly known as "liberals," here in 2018, is claiming to be, or advertising themselves as, tolerant? My perception is that the present-day liberalism movement actually prides itself on strict intolerance of failure to adhere to its standards of social conduct, and that observations to the contrary are an artifact of old farts like us remembering the liberal movement of the late 20th century and projecting it into the present day. |
Remember that time you went to marriage counseling because you wanted a second front door?
|
Remember that time you told everyone you were afraid of flying, but actually flew more in the last month than many in a lifetime?
|
Remember that time you took a polygraph on the day of a family member's funeral, was asked only two questions, and you couldn't even remember them?
|
Remember that time you asked 4 other people to remember that time, and they couldn't remember that time?
|
What a sham. How could a Dr not understand the committee was willing to fly to her for her testimony? HTF are you a Dr and dont understand that......unless your own attorney wasnt forthcoming to you?
Who leaked her name, Mrs Feinstein? An FBI investigation could have been handled discreetly in July/Aug, without publicly naming anyone. Her name was leaked on purpose and the timing of it, planned. Delay delay delay |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1503974)
Remember that time you went to marriage counseling because you wanted a second front door?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1503976)
Remember that time you told everyone you were afraid of flying, but actually flew more in the last month than many in a lifetime?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1503977)
Remember that time you took a polygraph on the day of a family member's funeral, was asked only two questions, and you couldn't even remember them?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1503978)
Remember that time you asked 4 other people to remember that time, and they couldn't remember that time?
And, again, re-stating the question from post # 12425: which representative of the group commonly known as "liberals," here in 2018, is claiming to be, or advertising themselves as, tolerant? Random political picture: https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...52&oe=5C54F6AC |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1503985)
And, again, re-stating the question from post # 12425: which representative of the group commonly known as "liberals," here in 2018, is claiming to be, or advertising themselves as, tolerant?
Lots of "not my president" https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...d5485abb90.jpg |
Our field news crews are getting ready for the announcement of the verdict in the Van Dyke trial.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...d8ba0efb15.jpg Yes, that is riot gear. Helmets, face shields, gas masks, spare cartridges for the gas masks, and first aid kits. (the bullet resistant vests were issued directly to each field photog / reporter, and are not shown here. ) I love Chicago, and all the peaceful, tolerant liberals in it. |
|
|
As a moderate I always admired the liberal tenets of tolerance, social justice, and working towards the collective good. I also admired the conservative tenets of limited and effective government, free markets and just rewards for labor and innovation. Ironically, none of those things are mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, all of these tenets have been completely abandoned by our political parties, the politicians within them, and a good portion of the citizens who claim to be "liberal" or "conservative". For a fair number of "liberal" or "conservative" people I know- if I get into a discussion with them, and challenge, and question, and challenge, and question, etc. I can frustrate them into a position that's a lot like "I want free shit" or "those "others" aren't real Americans and are stealing from me". I don't view this to be unrelated to what I wrote above. |
Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:
5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:
6. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault:
7. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory:
8. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoZTH9pVsAAAW1y.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoZTH9pUYAAUjBo.jpg:large |
Brain,
Presumably you do understand that facts and legitimate inquiry does not stand up to gossip and/or unsubstantiated claims, right? There has been enough media time spent on the subject that most people have already made up their minds if they are going to do so. When the FBI report is submitted later this week to everybody involved the Republicans will hold it up and proclaim loudly that it proves he is fit to be confirmed as long as it does not contain more information than is already in the media. The Democrats will just as loudly cry "FOUL" for some reason. They have already moved on to repeating loud and often that his temperament is not suitable to be a Supreme Court Justice and they will double down on that claim moving forward. If, on the other hand the FBI report indicates some level of legitimacy to the claims via backing from some secondary parties then the Democrats will proclaim that it proves he is a sexual predator while the Republicans will poo-poo it as insignificant and not being reason enough to toss out his nomination. It is all a dog and pony show orchestrated by the media for my personal entertainment. |
Originally Posted by BGordon
(Post 1504263)
It is all a dog and pony show orchestrated by the media for my personal entertainment.
Meanwhile, I'm more worried that Chicago is going to burn after Jason Van Dyke is found not guilty. And meanwhile, Bill Cosby is having to eat prison-grade pudding. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...ffb0bf3d25.png |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:35 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands