ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , internet incidents , Trump controversies , US-Russia relations , vladimir putin

Reply
Old 10th January 2017, 11:25 AM   #561
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,816
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I don't really see how this is relevant. The point is that the evidence is not available, whether that is for "good" or "bad" reasons has no bearing on that.
Of course it does! You are using the lack of evidence as a reason to reject the claim, even though in this case it might be a very good thing that the evidence isn't publicly available. You might even agree with the reasons, which then would raise another question: could you ever trust other people, among them experts on the matter, to determine whether the claim is true in your stead?

Quote:
It would be available for independent review and I would be able to also review it for myself.
And what happens if you can't make heads or tails of it because of your lack of knowledge on the matter?

Do you ever bring yourself to trust another person on any topic? Your dentist, maybe? He sees things on those X-rays that you can't even notice.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

Last edited by Argumemnon; 10th January 2017 at 11:26 AM.
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 11:31 AM   #562
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If I may edit your post, it was a good rejoinder up until the part I struck out. The Animus was advocating agnosticism, not arbitrary judgment.

Others will try to claim there's a difference with science, but there really isn't for the great bulk of us. You and I either cannot or have very, very good reasons not to try to replicate experiments. How many years work before I gain access to an electron microscope? So, even for most scientists, the great bulk of scientific claims come down to appeal to authority, at some level.
The "authority" in scientific contexts is the data, not necessarily the scientist who publishes the data.

If I were to analogize the current state of the Russian hacking claim, it would be that a journal with a spotty history has just published a submission from a group of anonymous authors who will not make their data or methodology open to peer review.

Additionally, a number of general interest magazines, popular opinion websites, and clickbait factories would have us believe 'their conclusions will amaze you!' or 'this will change everything about how our world works.'

Even if I am personally not capable of repeating the methodology of the experiment to test the validity of the data, I am going to provisionally give more consideration to data and methodology that can be challenged than an insistence that data exists which others cannot see and was produced by a method we may not be informed about.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 11:31 AM   #563
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,805
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Look, I can see that you have some familiarity with formal and probabilistic methods (and your familiarity with the latter exceeds mine). But it is clear that you haven't a clue when it comes to norms about actual reasoning of actual (non-idealistic) humans. Hell, I have only half a clue, but at least I don't pretend that if it's not Bayesian (or similar) then it's not "meaningful".

I appreciate your technical background, but not your utter ignorance on how real persons living real lives must make decisions, nor on your ridiculous impression of the meaning of "fallacy" in the non-formal world.
I'm not all that interested in how real persons living real lives must make decisions, I'm interested in good arguments in support of claims. When such arguments are presented in a venue that prides itself on skepticism I will hold them to a higher standard than "let's use a quick-and-dirty heuristic". This is a forum with all the space and time for making good arguments, it's not someone who's running late for work who finds their car won't start.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 11:34 AM   #564
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,805
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Unholy mother of Hell, man, this is one of the founding principles of rational thinking.
No it ain't. It really, really ain't. This entire thing started when some scientist got annoyed at people trying to shift the burden of proof and gave them a response at a level they would be able to understand, which then started leading a life of its own. It is no more a "founding principle of rational thinking" than that the rubber-sheet analogy is a "founding principle of general relativity".
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 10th January 2017 at 11:43 AM.
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 11:41 AM   #565
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,816
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No it ain't. It really, really ain't. This entire thing started when some scientist got annoyed at people trying to shift the burden of proof and gave them a response at a level they would be able to understand, which then started leading a life of its own.
My question was in response to your apparent ignorance of the very basic rational principle of the burden of proof being on the positive claim, since negative claims are generally impossible to prove.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 11:48 AM   #566
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,805
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
My question was in response to your apparent ignorance of the very basic rational principle of the burden of proof being on the positive claim, since negative claims are generally impossible to prove.
There is no difference between proving a positive and proving a negative, which should be obvious to anyone who's ever heard of a thing called "negation".

What that "you can't prove a negative" was supposed to convey was that one shouldn't posit the existence of entities (gods, fairies, teapots orbiting Mars, ...) and then requiring the other side of the argument to disprove it. That's as far as it goes really.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 10th January 2017 at 11:51 AM.
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 12:30 PM   #567
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,816
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
There is no difference between proving a positive and proving a negative
Ok, then. Prove to me that there isn't a small stealth alien spaceship orbiting Neptune. Good luck.

The problem with negative claims is that you have to observe all of the universe all at once, for the claim above.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 12:38 PM   #568
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,808
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The "authority" in scientific contexts is the data, not necessarily the scientist who publishes the data.

If I were to analogize the current state of the Russian hacking claim, it would be that a journal with a spotty history has just published a submission from a group of anonymous authors who will not make their data or methodology open to peer review.

Additionally, a number of general interest magazines, popular opinion websites, and clickbait factories would have us believe 'their conclusions will amaze you!' or 'this will change everything about how our world works.'

Even if I am personally not capable of repeating the methodology of the experiment to test the validity of the data, I am going to provisionally give more consideration to data and methodology that can be challenged than an insistence that data exists which others cannot see and was produced by a method we may not be informed about.
Of course that would be weighed against one crank who disagrees with them and has a long history of making claims proven to be false.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 12:58 PM   #569
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,508
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
... I support the publication of the evidence. The furthest I'm willing to go is to have the evidence given for independent review to randomly selected computer scientists who may be required to sign a NDA. I have absolutely no interest in your "congressional investigation"....
I looked back a bit in the thread to find this, which seems to be fairly representative of the disagreements under current discussion. To respond, I decided to recover some text from my "post overflow" file (60,000 words and counting), which I created for the very many posts I end up deciding against for any one of several possible reasons.

***
Sorry to the RT apologists having fun, but while I cannot say much, I will say I have had (legal, mega-heavy NDA) access to the full, detailed technical specs for a typical modern telecom/ISP, including all voice and data switching infrastructure (HW & SW) that is required. Let's just say there are many mechanisms for tracking supposedly anonymous traffic: think of the internet as similar to a downtown urban environment, with cameras you can replay at will to see what happened where and when. Whereas encryption may mask content (and not always), the routing is there to be found, making senders almost as identifiable as receivers (with some diligence) by backtracking to the source ISP (nominally requires time requesting data and getting legal approvals for the whole routing chain). Beyond that I am guessing there are more things that can be done, but I cannot vouch for them. However, it would be trivial, say, to identify the hackers as having worked from a certain area of Moscow.

We then have the type of tools used, which may exhibit qualities that either flag them as part of a known toolkit, or as requiring significant resources. Finally, we have human intel that can involve sources within groups using such tools. For all three reasons, it is completely understandable why all of the information cannot be published. For the last two reasons, especially the last, it is clear why giving the information to, say, a group of computer scientists is not possible. Besides, putting together intel from disparate sources and working through the logic does involve a skill set that requires training or experience. It could still be true that there is amateurism involved in the accusations, so it is still wait and see, and/or go with what we've got. I personally don't think the intel is flawed, but rather than for a technical reason I cannot prove, for another: what it took for Comey's Trump-gazing-in-awe FBI to come around on the topic of Russian hacking must have been epically, arm-twistingly convincing.

As to the fave GOP meme (for public consumption) of the data release being a public service and no scandal, the other shoe that has yet to drop is if any compromising information was also found on GOP servers by the same group(s) and not released, making the entire operation transparently partisan. This, and not "good intentions," may be what has some Republican Senate leaders still pushing for hearings they can control up front. Let's recall: this is the GOP of Abramoff fame, the Indian Affairs Bureau scandal, and myriad others, including Reagan's record of 138 administration officials indicted. You know, the same, "honest" good ole boys who just tried to nix all effective oversight of their misdeeds.*

Oh, and Assange is an obvious shill with an agenda.
***

*I guess I wrote this the day after the Reps tried to kill the independent ethics committee. The reason I hesitated to post it in the first place is obvious: given my own forced lack of transparency, trust is the only basis for accepting the first point.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 01:35 PM   #570
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,337
^dude, you've unloaded an earlier remix of this stuff on us already in #204 to which I gave a brief appropriate answer. Try not to forget your own posts while "looking back in the thread".

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 10th January 2017 at 01:37 PM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 01:39 PM   #571
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 40,793
In Soviet Russia, Putin blames YOU!
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 01:41 PM   #572
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,337
There was a senate intelligence committee hearing about the "Russia hacked us" idiocy with all the usual suspects a few hours ago. C-SPAN recording should be here. Not sure if I can stand watching it without killing some small, fluffy animals to blow off steam, so maybe I better wait for summaries.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 01:47 PM   #573
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Of course that would be weighed against one crank who disagrees with them and has a long history of making claims proven to be false.
One crank disagreeing with the conclusions has nothing to do with my saying that I lack a sufficient level of evidence to agree or disagree.

There are more than two possible takes on this (other than agree or disagree).

The arguments other people make, their reasons for making them, and the prevailing attitudes about people who make those claims are all irrelevant to my position.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 02:09 PM   #574
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,976
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The "authority" in scientific contexts is the data, not necessarily the scientist who publishes the data.

If I were to analogize the current state of the Russian hacking claim, it would be that a journal with a spotty history has just published a submission from a group of anonymous authors who will not make their data or methodology open to peer review.

Additionally, a number of general interest magazines, popular opinion websites, and clickbait factories would have us believe 'their conclusions will amaze you!' or 'this will change everything about how our world works.'

Even if I am personally not capable of repeating the methodology of the experiment to test the validity of the data, I am going to provisionally give more consideration to data and methodology that can be challenged than an insistence that data exists which others cannot see and was produced by a method we may not be informed about.
You and I learn about the data from the mouths of the scientists themselves, so being given the data doesn't add a lot.

Having the data and methodology helps, because we figger that others (if not we) can replicate the experiment. So, yes, some testimony is better than others. Telling me how you came by the result in a way that others can also come by it is better than just telling me the result.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 02:12 PM   #575
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,976
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I'm not all that interested in how real persons living real lives must make decisions, I'm interested in good arguments in support of claims. When such arguments are presented in a venue that prides itself on skepticism I will hold them to a higher standard than "let's use a quick-and-dirty heuristic". This is a forum with all the space and time for making good arguments, it's not someone who's running late for work who finds their car won't start.
In this very forum, there's not a single person who is trying to use Bayesianism in order to reason about the trustworthiness of this or that authority, including you.

Informal logic is what we use, and hence the tools of evaluating informal arguments are obviously *********** relevant.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 02:15 PM   #576
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,976
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
My question was in response to your apparent ignorance of the very basic rational principle of the burden of proof being on the positive claim, since negative claims are generally impossible to prove.
No, please, don't say that. There is no logical difference between positive and negative claims in terms of burden of proof. This is a common myth that just doesn't correspond to any rule of logic.

(There is a reason why the myth seems common, but this reason has to do with theory-making and not with burden of proof in arguments.)
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 03:32 PM   #577
logger
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,198
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How would you even know that?
It's not about me, but many saw hillary get off without even a slap and felt like the fix was in.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 03:33 PM   #578
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
You and I learn about the data from the mouths of the scientists themselves, so being given the data doesn't add a lot.

Having the data and methodology helps, because we figger that others (if not we) can replicate the experiment. So, yes, some testimony is better than others. Telling me how you came by the result in a way that others can also come by it is better than just telling me the result.
We're basically on the same page, then.

Because I can be convinced that a guy who lived in Spain most of his life decided to take elephants from Africa on a journey through the Alps into Italy. It did take a bit more convincing than 'just trust us', however.

:9
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 03:36 PM   #579
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 61,932
Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him
Quote:
These senior intelligence officials also included the synopsis to demonstrate that Russia had compiled information potentially harmful to both political parties, but only released information damaging to Hillary Clinton and Democrats. This synopsis was not an official part of the report from the intelligence community case about Russian hacks, but some officials said it augmented the evidence that Moscow intended to harm Clinton's candidacy and help Trump's, several officials with knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 10th January 2017 at 03:43 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 03:38 PM   #580
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,508
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
^dude, you've unloaded an earlier remix of this stuff on us already in #204 to which I gave a brief appropriate answer. Try not to forget your own posts while "looking back in the thread".
I'd obviously forgotten. This version is nevertheless improved. The accusation made in the earlier reply, of being a shill, is ridiculous. Your vision is limited to people under the thrall of one camp and those of another. Binary, and limited. Further, that all motive is suspect when you are projecting is telling.

I've now reviewed your first few posts, and they are all click bait to trash. Do you have any substance of your own to offer? Let's have it, in your words.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 03:56 PM   #581
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,337
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I read the article. If I am reading this correctly, this was research to compromise Trump done by Republicans and Democrats. Russians acquired the memos along with half the global intelligence community?
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 03:58 PM   #582
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,816
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
No, please, don't say that. There is no logical difference between positive and negative claims in terms of burden of proof.
Of course there is. "There is such a thing as a swan" is easy to check: find one. "There is no such thing as a swan" is virtually-impossible: look everywhere in the universe at once. This has been established a while ago by people way smarter than either of us.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:00 PM   #583
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,816
Originally Posted by logger View Post
It's not about me, but many saw hillary get off without even a slap and felt like the fix was in.
And what does that have to do with the CIA? Are you lumping all "government" and "state institutions" in the same bowl? If one person is corrupt, they all are?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:02 PM   #584
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,337
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
I'd obviously forgotten. This version is nevertheless improved. The accusation made in the earlier reply, of being a shill, is ridiculous. Your vision is limited to people under the thrall of one camp and those of another. Binary, and limited. Further, that all motive is suspect when you are projecting is telling.

LOL. In my reply I've used the words "WP apologist" in obvious, tounge-in-cheek, exact mirroring of what you started your confused "conversation" with, back then and now, namely calling a whole bunch of unspecified participants of this thread "RT apologists", which is kind of a conversation stopper. Now we know that what you really meant was "RT shills", thanks for the admission.

I suggest you keep those remaining tens of thousand words to yourself, for the greater good.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:08 PM   #585
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,337
Extra-LOL just noticed scrolling back a bit:

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Oh, and Assange is an obvious shill with an agenda.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:10 PM   #586
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Another reason that Trump is so hilariously unprepared for this job. The major implication here (besides the Russia thing itself) is that the intel chiefs and some powerful members of Congress now have this info, as well.

So what do you say, Mr. Trump? Would you like to play ball with us or would you like us to have some very public hearings about all of this so that Americans can watch us go through all of the opposition research with painstaking detail? Live. On C-Span. For the next 3 months.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 10th January 2017 at 04:12 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:13 PM   #587
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,337
One of the funny things about this nonsense is that the clowns forwarding the "Russian Trolls" narrative have no idea what Troll means in Internet lingo - they use it as if it means "shill". But by now the Russians - UK Embassy, MFA, Kremlin spokespeople - are trolling them in the real meaning of the word. Hilarious.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:15 PM   #588
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,337
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Another reason that Trump is so hilariously unprepared for this job. The major implication here (besides the Russia thing itself) is that the intel chiefs and some powerful members of Congress now have this info, as well.

So what do you say, Mr. Trump? Would you like to play ball with us or would you like us to have some very public hearings about all of this so that Americans can watch us go through all of the opposition research with painstaking detail? Live. On C-Span. For the next 3 months.

At least Teh Donald knows what a proper troll is.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:19 PM   #589
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,976
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Of course there is. "There is such a thing as a swan" is easy to check: find one. "There is no such thing as a swan" is virtually-impossible: look everywhere in the universe at once. This has been established a while ago by people way smarter than either of us.
None of this has anything to do with burden of proof. If I assert that there are no swans, then it is up to me to give evidence. If you assert that there are, then you must give evidence.

There is absolutely no reasonable rule that, if your claim is hard or impossible to prove, then you don't have to.

The nonsensicality of "Burden of proof is on the positive claim" becomes obvious when we examine positive and negative claims that are equivalent or look at nested quantifiers.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:20 PM   #590
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,337
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Another reason that Trump is so hilariously unprepared for this job. The major implication here (besides the Russia thing itself) is that the intel chiefs and some powerful members of Congress now have this info, as well.

So what do you say, Mr. Trump? Would you like to play ball with us or would you like us to have some very public hearings about all of this so that Americans can watch us go through all of the opposition research with painstaking detail? Live. On C-Span. For the next 3 months.
It sounds like everyone has read those.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 04:52 PM   #591
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,491
If it was proven that Trump had people coordinating with Russia, that's pretty frickin bad.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:04 PM   #592
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,558
Well, the news moves fast.

Buzzfeed has published the 35 pages in question:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...legations.html
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:08 PM   #593
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,491
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Well, the news moves fast.

Buzzfeed has published the 35 pages in question:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...legations.html
That's from the FBI?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:22 PM   #594
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,946
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Well, the news moves fast.

Buzzfeed has published the 35 pages in question:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...legations.html
What verification do we have that those are really the papers? I mean, that's VERY damning...
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:25 PM   #595
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,107
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That's from the FBI?
It's unverified information sourced to anonymous figures whose existence has not been proven. I'm skeptical as this seems almost too perfect. There needs to be an independent probe into these long standing allegations but the Satanic Cheeto will never allow it.

ETA: It's almost too perfectly lurid. He allegedly hired prostitutes for a “golden shower” party on Ritz Moscow bed where Obama/Michelle slept. I wouldn't put it past him but he's a well known germophobe.

ETA2: "Trumped-up trickle down" is now a much better line than when it was used in the debates.

Last edited by Stacko; 10th January 2017 at 05:38 PM.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:28 PM   #596
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That's from the FBI?
Not sure where Buzzfeed's copy is "from."

This goes back to just before election day:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...e-donald-trump
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:34 PM   #597
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,946
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Not sure where Buzzfeed's copy is "from."

This goes back to just before election day:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...e-donald-trump

If that's the FBI review of the information the former MI6 agent discovered while doing opposition research for Trump's Republican rivals, that was then passed along to McCain, it is plausible. CNN was reporting that this information (if this is the same information) was being verified by the FBI, and that other sources had corroborated much of it.

Of course it might not be. It might be all made up there. I mean, that's actual treason they're talking about.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:40 PM   #598
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,337
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
If that's the FBI review of the information the former MI6 agent discovered while doing opposition research for Trump's Republican rivals, that was then passed along to McCain, it is plausible. CNN was reporting that this information (if this is the same information) was being verified by the FBI, and that other sources had corroborated much of it.

Of course it might not be. It might be all made up there. I mean, that's actual treason they're talking about.
What part do you claim is treason?
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:43 PM   #599
logger
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,198
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And what does that have to do with the CIA? Are you lumping all "government" and "state institutions" in the same bowl? If one person is corrupt, they all are?
There is an obvious perception they're corrupt.

You don't sense that people have a mistrust about them?
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 05:44 PM   #600
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
 
commandlinegamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mazes of Menace
Posts: 8,505
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
I wouldn't put it past him but he's a well known germophobe.
As I understand it, it's a common misconception that urine is sterile, so I don't see a p-party being a problem for the Donald.
__________________
He bade me take any rug in the house.
commandlinegamer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.