|
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. |
7th January 2017, 01:40 PM | #321 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
7th January 2017, 01:41 PM | #322 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
7th January 2017, 01:43 PM | #323 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
Out of curiosity, and I really don't know the answer here, do we have any declassified evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons? If not, do you also ignore those claims?
ETA: Just to be clear, my question has nothing at all to do with anti-Semitism. I chose Israel just because their possession of nukes is more or less universally acknowledged, but not publicly proclaimed. |
7th January 2017, 02:04 PM | #324 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
7th January 2017, 02:07 PM | #325 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
7th January 2017, 02:13 PM | #326 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
7th January 2017, 02:35 PM | #327 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
That's a rather generic overview of what phishing is and a whole lot of conjecture attempting to demonstrate how the group behind the phishing might be Russian.
So this brings it to the level of hypothesis. We've been at hypothesis for months, now. There's some circumstantial evidence about that can raise my estimate to 'plausible' or 'credible', but it's still a long, long walk to 'proven' from there. |
7th January 2017, 02:45 PM | #328 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
I don't buy this supposed skepticism about the CIA claims. The skeptical parties are for the most part either extreme left Putin sycophants, or extreme right Trumpistas - who, by the way, had no problem when the FBI head said there might be some emails on a computer somewhere. It's selective skepticism at the best of times, and is simply not credible.
For the rational people out there: we're not going to see the evidence, so we can simply stop speculating. Instead, it's a matter of trust. The US intelligence agencies, various bi-partisan senators and the POTUS or Donald "Pussygrabber" Trump and Vladimir Putin. |
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
7th January 2017, 03:06 PM | #329 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
Oh surprise, surprise - racist, sexist, dumb, etc.
It isn't an argument. This is the failed strategy of the losers in this election who spent $1.2 billion dollars and had every advantage of the media, establishment muscle etc. on their side and still lost. Because there isn't a platform. There aren't principles. There is just antisocial conduct directed against anyone who disagrees.
Quote:
This is even worse than during the Iraq WMD propaganda, which was easy enough to see for the incompetence of it. Yellow cake forgery, silly cartoon diagrams, etc. What this tells us is how desperate the establishment is to change the subject and keep the eyes off the CONTENT of the emails. Same with you. Oh, how DARE I talk about this being a distraction. The only legitimate discussion is what you, the censor, dictates to me. Wikileaks says they have more blockbuster stuff coming out and the diversionary twaddle about Russia can't stop it. |
7th January 2017, 03:15 PM | #330 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
Credibility is not a pass/fail system solely predicated upon whether even less reputable examples exist. The election is over, time to put 'but the other side is worse(!)' arguments away until 2020.
You're going down the 'shame them' route by trying to suggest criticism of the information is support of Trump or Putin. If you have to rely on that to make your case, guess what that says about your case? |
7th January 2017, 03:27 PM | #331 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
No, now is the time to point out every single thing until Trump goes away into history in infamy. Russia meddling in the US election to get Trump to the Presidency would seriously - if not irreparably damage the legitimacy of his Presidency. That's why his sycophants don't want us to focus on it. That's the reason we need to focus more on it. Keep pushing, and eventually the whole rotten corrupted mess will come tumbling down.
No, I'm pointing out the obvious. There is no shaming these people. If there was, they would be perpetually curled into a whimpering ball considering how shameful their behavior is. It's not my case. It's the case of the US intelligence agencies. I'm pointing out to you why you shouldn't expect to ever see the evidence. You can then either chose to accept that the US intelligence agencies are actually doing their jobs, or you can concoct a conspiracy theory. Your choice. |
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
7th January 2017, 03:36 PM | #332 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
7th January 2017, 03:52 PM | #333 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
So do you want focus on the issue at hand or do you want to go off on rants about Trump and broad-brush denunciations of the alleged motives of anyone taking a critical position of the claims?
Quote:
Quote:
I can state that without evidence to back up the assertions made, I cannot reasonably conclude their accuracy. That is neither accepting the claim nor concocting a conspiracy. I have floated a speculation or two as to what possible motives may exist for misrepresenting the data, but I have just the same lack of evidence as they do. Nor do I rule out other possibilities like misunderstanding the data they rest their conclusions on or data being planted that leads investigators to an intended conclusion on the part of those who pulled it off, etc. But more than anything, I have to laugh at anyone claiming to want this issue focused on who then turns around and accuses others not reaching the same conclusion as them of <insert derogatory language here>. You want me to 'trust' agencies with dubious and checkered histories? That makes this a discussion about belief. I'll show myself out if that's the case. LOL |
7th January 2017, 03:57 PM | #334 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
You're the one focusing on my post. If you didn't like what I wrote, you can always ignore it. As it is, I stand by every word.
Nope. As I said, you can either accept their conclusions, or make up **** and not accept it. They don't have a lack of evidence. They just have a lack of evidence that you are cleared to view. Honestly, I don't care who or what you trust. You don't matter in the grand scheme of things. What matters is that this issue is thoroughly investigated by law enforcement, and that there are impeachment procedures against the incoming administration should it be shown that Trump or any of his staff in any way coordinated with the Russian hackers. ETA: I would also add that if there aren't congressional investigations into this, it is only because the GOP is too corrupt to investigate one of their own. |
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
7th January 2017, 04:17 PM | #335 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
It's not so much that I didn't like it, it's that rather than supply a substantive response, you chose to wander off into judgmental excoriation and impugning motives (with your fantastic mind reader skillz!).
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
'Shown' being the key word.
Quote:
Maybe read some of your more forceful claims of conspiracy mongering back while looking in a mirror. |
7th January 2017, 04:23 PM | #336 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
Doesn't take mind reading skills. It simply takes basic intelligence.
There are no other possibilities. You either accept it or you don't. Those are the only two available. If you don't, you have to make up a bunch of stuff in order to justify why, which is what you call 'speculation'. You said you had the same lack of evidence as they do (they being the CIA and FBI). They don't have a lack of evidence, so what you said was untrue. Shown to people with appropriate security clearance. Oh, give it a rest. We're dealing with the GOP here, who had how many investigations into Clinton's emails, and before them, Benghazi? The only reason this - a much more serious issue - would escape a congressional investigation would be because of partisanship, and you damn well know it. |
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
7th January 2017, 04:41 PM | #337 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
Believing your ability to correctly deduce the motives of tens of millions of people is not a sign of intelligence. I'd call that hubris.
Quote:
"You can then either chose to accept that the US intelligence agencies are actually doing their jobs, or you can concoct a conspiracy theory." I gave you several other ways of arriving at various conclusions and I hold a position that is neither of the two which you describe, so obviously those two are not the only possibilities. You can rephrase the original claim all you want, but continuing to insist that only two possibilities exist while simultaneously denying that doing so is a false dichotomy is only eroding your own credibility by revealing your intransigence and failure to be impartial.
Quote:
Refers to evidence being made available to bolster the claim. What evidence do you have that there is more substantive evidence? Man, if I had a nickel for every time someone wanted me to believe them and believe that they have evidence to prove it...but can't show it to me...
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th January 2017, 04:59 PM | #338 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
We don't have tens of millions of people posting in this thread, nor are there tens of millions of Trump sycophants.
Sure, if it'll make you feel better: You can either accept the conclusion of the US intelligence agencies, you can concoct a conspiracy theory, or you can speculate wildly for absolutely no reason. Better? Then you should have written that. You didn't. What you wrote was that they have a lack of evidence. More substantive evidence than what? What do you say we simply stop accepting the opinions of experts? This is getting ridiculous. Yes, you do. If you don't, you're stupid, and you're not stupid. Not what anyone's saying. We don't know Putin's involvement, and neither I expect does the CIA. Yet. You're asking the wrong person. The CIA has the evidence. Not me. And you aren't cleared to view it. Tough titties. You should take the time to read my posts. I said that if there isn't a congressional investigation, it's because of partisanship. I don't believe there will be, but I'm open to being surprised. |
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
7th January 2017, 06:05 PM | #339 |
Salted Sith Cynic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
|
|
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis |
|
7th January 2017, 06:50 PM | #340 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot
You learn something new every day. |
7th January 2017, 07:56 PM | #341 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
7th January 2017, 08:06 PM | #342 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,466
|
Is there evidence yet?
We're 9 pages in and I still haven't seen evidence |
__________________
Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore them. |
|
7th January 2017, 08:08 PM | #343 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
All we have are conclusions from the intelligence community. They do not want to disclose the evidence to the public because it would hinder their lines of evidence-gathering. However, I think we can all agree that it is better to trust Trump and Breitbart on this, as they are more reliable sources on inforamation.
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
7th January 2017, 08:15 PM | #344 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,466
|
|
__________________
Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore them. |
|
7th January 2017, 08:43 PM | #345 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
Is it blind trust? These are vetted, non-partisan organizations that also cross-check each other. There is also the fact that much of Russia's attempt to influence elections were out in the open. As a skeptic, I weigh the conclusions of the intelligence community over the conclusion of Trump and his conspiracy theorist colleagues. Also, I trust Obama because he has a history of being trustworthy.
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
7th January 2017, 08:57 PM | #346 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
7th January 2017, 09:14 PM | #347 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
|
Hehehehe then the sound of howling laughter.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Health Care costs will go down for everyone. There's not a smidgen of corruption in the faux IRS scandal. The attack was the result of a protest, not a planned attack. The line in the sand was only imaginary Hillary did nothing wrong Evidently, your definition of trustworthy is different from mine... |
__________________
[Noc] |
|
7th January 2017, 09:23 PM | #349 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
7th January 2017, 09:32 PM | #350 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
Nope. Well, interestingly enough, there is evidence in the thread that RT is providing better[*] coverage of it than the Washington Post. But to be fair, that's hardly a standard anyway.
* a strict superset along both the axes of amount of information and verifiability. |
7th January 2017, 09:34 PM | #351 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
7th January 2017, 09:35 PM | #352 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
7th January 2017, 10:50 PM | #353 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
I see a conspiracy theory in which anyone who doesn't uncritically accept the intelligence community's assertions is a Trump scyophant, Breitbart fan, conspiracy loon, 'speculating wildly', 'stupid', not 'rational', etc.
This is apparently another area in which I find a lot of emotional flak being thrown up at anything less than full and unconditional support for the party orthodoxy. What's funny to me is that I'm way off to the left of the political frame of the U.S., but my expressing some reservations apparently places me with 'them'. In the Obama era, I've sometimes corrected people who identify me as liberal with a "well, not quite" and a bit of a grin. I'm quickly approaching the point where I want to scoff and say "not even close." |
8th January 2017, 01:49 AM | #355 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
|
8th January 2017, 02:11 AM | #357 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
8th January 2017, 02:30 AM | #358 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
|
8th January 2017, 05:56 AM | #359 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
Here is a collection of estimates from the time
https://www.propublica.org/article/h...-and-dont-know The most aggressive estimate is 80% of 14 million. 11 million/318 million people=3.4%. I went with a more middle estimate. The reason so few people were affected as this primarily targeted the private insurance market. That was the smallest portion of the market. |
8th January 2017, 09:30 AM | #360 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|