CatBus

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

Lazy sexist, was lazy.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument.

No, it’s more like… The bigger my understanding of the world/universe gets, the bigger God gets. It’s kind of like the Narnia book series, where Lucy remarks to Aslan that he is bigger than before. He responds by saying that she is getting bigger (or older) and so in response he looks bigger to her each time she meets him.

It’s all about perspective. When I look at nature or science, I don’t fill in the gaps of my understanding with “God did it.” I marvel at God’s creation. It’s kind of like looking at a painting and it making you think of the artist who made it. Learning about the universe, about science and art and nature, helps me learn more about God. About who He is and what he’s truly like.

Additionally, I do have personal experiences on which to draw that undeniably to me prove the existence, presence, and intimacy of God. I have had personal encounters with him and have physically felt his presence. I knew it was Him. I can not explain these experiences to you in an irrefutable way. At the end of the day you would have to judge the testimonies of myself and other people involved. Thus my experiences are not scientifically provable, nor intentionally repeatable (even suggesting trying that sounds horribly arrogant to me).

What value is faith if you could prove it?

If I could prove my experiences by replicating them in a controlled environment? If He wanted me to be able to do that, I could do it. But that’s up to Him, not me.

It was more of a rhetorical question, doubting Thomas and all that. That fact that it can’t be proven gives value to faith. With proof, faith changes character completely and is merely reason extended to a new field.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument.

No, it’s more like… The bigger my understanding of the world/universe gets, the bigger God gets. It’s kind of like the Narnia book series, where Lucy remarks to Aslan that he is bigger than before. He responds by saying that she is getting bigger (or older) and so in response he looks bigger to her each time she meets him.

It’s all about perspective. When I look at nature or science, I don’t fill in the gaps of my understanding with “God did it.” I marvel at God’s creation. It’s kind of like looking at a painting and it making you think of the artist who made it. Learning about the universe, about science and art and nature, helps me learn more about God. About who He is and what he’s truly like.

Additionally, I do have personal experiences on which to draw that undeniably to me prove the existence, presence, and intimacy of God. I have had personal encounters with him and have physically felt his presence. I knew it was Him. I can not explain these experiences to you in an irrefutable way. At the end of the day you would have to judge the testimonies of myself and other people involved. Thus my experiences are not scientifically provable, nor intentionally repeatable (even suggesting trying that sounds horribly arrogant to me).

What value is faith if you could prove it?

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument. There are gaps in human understanding – they change over time, but there are always gaps. Once, God made it rain, now we understand more about weather and he doesn’t (anyone seen Gene Wilder’s “God Does Not Make It Rain!” monologue from The Frisco Kid?). To an atheist-inclined person, God’s shrinking role is more proof that he’s never been there at all. To a religiously-inclined person, the gaps that have persisted through the ages point to the existence of God, as it does in Wilder’s monologue.

But they’re just gaps. They are only rightly filled with “I don’t know”. Which means they are just the blank canvas onto which we paint our own desires. If we want science to fill them, we say science will fill them, even if we don’t know it will (Heisenberg demonstrated science does not have the capacity to fill every gap). If we want God to fill them, look, there he is. Gaps neither prove nor disprove either side.

I suppose you can’t be deemed a useful idiot until you’ve first proven yourself as an idiot.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/how-manaforts-inability-to-convert-a-word-doc-to-pdf-helped-prosecutors/

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

From the new Manafort/Gates indictments:

In total, more than $75,000,000 flowed through the offshore accounts. MANAFORT, with the assistance of GATES, laundered more than $30,000,000, income that he concealed from the United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the Department of Justice, and others. GATES obtained more than $3,000,000 from the offshore accounts, income that he too concealed from the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and others.

For those of you wondering when we were going to stop seeing these “carrot” indictments (one count of lying to investigators, etc), this is a “stick” indictment for sure.

I kinda like the voiceover concept, as it preserves the original actors’ performances, and doesn’t even try to “perform” the part, just translates like a… well, like a translator would. I like the way the Polish one sounds, although I think that was done on a much better budget in the nineties. I imagine some low-budget, unofficial, garage voiceover might not have quite the same quality. And also voiceovers are just weird, whether or not I like them.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Manafort just got hit with a 32-count indictment: tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud. So now we finally see the sort of indictment Mueller hands out to people who are not cooperating with the investigation, and ouch. So Manafort gets the choice: flip, rot in the pen, or force a nasty constitutional endgame that makes Trump look guilty as hell right as the election season is heating up?

Knowing how much Trump cares about other human beings, and how much Kool-Aid Manafort’s drunk, my money’s on #2.

Manafort’s misdeeds took place 2006-2015. It’s a long way from having anything to do with Trump.

What Manafort’s been charged with stems from that period. The timeframe of the leverage doesn’t have to match the timeframe of the information you’re trying to get. And Manafort doesn’t have to flip on Trump, he could flip on people even closer to Trump (his lawyer, his son-in-law). Mueller’s definitely going after this the way you go after organized crime. Lawyers are flipped, attorney-client privilege is invalidated.

To say he could flip assumes there is anything to flip on.

To say he’s been charged with 32 counts of financial crimes assumes he’s not a completely ethical person. Maybe he’ll go to trial and prove himself innocent. And maybe there’s nothing to flip on. I’m giving the same odds on both.

Correction: the indictment includes financial crimes by Manafort as recently as January 2017.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Manafort just got hit with a 32-count indictment: tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud. So now we finally see the sort of indictment Mueller hands out to people who are not cooperating with the investigation, and ouch. So Manafort gets the choice: flip, rot in the pen, or force a nasty constitutional endgame that makes Trump look guilty as hell right as the election season is heating up?

Knowing how much Trump cares about other human beings, and how much Kool-Aid Manafort’s drunk, my money’s on #2.

Manafort’s misdeeds took place 2006-2015. It’s a long way from having anything to do with Trump.

What Manafort’s been charged with stems from that period. The timeframe of the leverage doesn’t have to match the timeframe of the information you’re trying to get. And Manafort doesn’t have to flip on Trump, he could flip on people even closer to Trump (his lawyer, his son-in-law). Mueller’s definitely going after this the way you go after organized crime. Lawyers are flipped, attorney-client privilege is invalidated.

To say he could flip assumes there is anything to flip on.

To say he’s been charged with 32 counts of financial crimes assumes he’s not a completely ethical person. Maybe he’ll go to trial and prove himself innocent. And maybe there’s nothing to flip on. I’m giving the same odds on both.

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

Manafort just got hit with a 32-count indictment: tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud. Flip, rot in the pen,

I’m not sure if he’d rot. He’d probably be sent to a nice, white-collar prison.

Consider how hard he’s fighting house arrest. It’s hard to be a Russian asset under any sort of close supervision.

Manafort just got hit with a 32-count indictment: tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud. So now we finally see the sort of indictment Mueller hands out to people who are not cooperating with the investigation, and ouch. So Manafort gets the choice: flip, rot in the pen, or force a nasty constitutional endgame that makes Trump look guilty as hell right as the election season is heating up?

Knowing how much Trump cares about other human beings, and how much Kool-Aid Manafort’s drunk, my money’s on #2.

darth_ender said:

For what it’s worth, this forum takes too much of my time and energy. I know the regulars here will criticize me for what I’m about to do. I know that two years from now, someone will say something like, “Remember when darth_ender took his ball and went home?” Regardless, I think I should just give greater energy to real life and stop wasting it trying to be friends with Internet people, especially people who really don’t care. Overall, it’s been a pleasant seven-ish years, people. I’m sure I’ll continue to read the threads I care about. I am just going to log out on all my devices and don’t intend to log back in much if ever again. Thank you for the enjoyable interactions. I mean that sincerely.

I appreciate the time suck, and prioritizing real life over Internet people. But dammit.

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Oh my god.

It’s like if you guys had to define for me what a television is.

Wait. Are you telling us you’re not Tuvalu’s Frink? You’re Television’s Frink?!?

I’m not telling you anything.

Well then I’ll keep imagining you in a grass skirt.

Damn I’m sexy.

Well that’s ruined. Now I’m imagining something safer: you arriving at the door wearing a tool belt, to fix the cable.

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Oh my god.

It’s like if you guys had to define for me what a television is.

Wait. Are you telling us you’re not Tuvalu’s Frink? You’re Television’s Frink?!?

I’m not telling you anything.

Well then I’ll keep imagining you in a grass skirt.

TV’s Frink said:

Oh my god.

It’s like if you guys had to define for me what a television is.

Wait. Are you telling us you’re not Tuvalu’s Frink? You’re Television’s Frink?!?

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

EDIT: Damn it, but your stealth editing skills are still top notch!

Stop trying to bully me with compliments.

Bully for you!

Also, Frink, your text formatting for quoted posts could use some work.

For more details, see this Markdown demo.

EDIT: Damn it, but your stealth editing skills are still top notch!

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Chyron on CNN: “Trump blames video games, movies for violence by youth.”

What?

What are you talking about?

The little banner at the bottom of a news program used to rotate headlines, also known as a chyron.

EDIT: Never try to outpost yhwx. Never.

yhwx said:

Chyron on CNN: “Trump blames video games, movies for violence by youth.”

The important question is, now that you’ve seen him on CNN, does he look like he’s 39?

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’m in high school. I have many wonderful teachers. I don’t think any of them should be armed. Some of my teachers, and again, I love them, can hardly even operate a DVD player. I do not want any of them to be given firearms.

What about police officers that are extremely well trained and especially for a school environment and whom had been extremely background checked?

yhwx said:

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157761427787777

Every time another one of these mass shootings happen - right when the Republicans start telling us that the answer is more guns, guns for everyone, guns for teachers, guns for students - I think about Chris Kyle.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157915056803840

Chris Kyle was the American Sniper guy - a highly decorated Navy Seal sniper with 150 confirmed kills in the Iraq War. Whatever else is true about him, he definitely was very good at shooting guns and used to being in combat environments.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158367697723392

Kyle knew that the man he was with was dangerous. He knew he was armed - he armed him! To the degree that anyone could be forewarned and prepared for a situation, Kyle was. And yet the other guy shot two armed and trained men dead, got in a car and drove away.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158835043774470

Today a bunch of men are going to go to a gun store and they’re going to buy their third or 10th or 25th gun, because this scares them, and they think the gun is going to keep them safe.

You tell me in which scenario does a nut with gun have a better can at killing a lot of people.

1. Going into a school where no one is armed.
2. Going into a police station full of armed cops.

Or instead of hypotheticals, let’s use real numbers:

23 percent of emergency department shootings involved a perpetrator taking a gun from a security officer

But that’s in hospitals. Maybe schools are different.

Collipso said:

Warbler said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’m in high school. I have many wonderful teachers. I don’t think any of them should be armed. Some of my teachers, and again, I love them, can hardly even operate a DVD player. I do not want any of them to be given firearms.

police officers that are extremely well trained and especially for a school environment and whom had been extremely background checked?

I’ve never even heard of such specimen.

TBH I’m not sure how the security guard at my school would have checked those various boxes, but even if security guards are not necessarily the solution, they’re not necessarily bad. The guy at my school was a former cop, but seemed to do very well with the whole “beat cop” thing. Walking around, chatting and joking with kids, knowing their names, gaining their trust and respect. Definitely never got called in to deal with regular school discipline issues, was strictly for security. Which, to be honest, meant I can’t think of a time he actually did anything security-related beyond breaking up the occasional fistfight, but that’s how security is. Most of the time, you’re paying people just to be there. Unfortunately I think this guy and his relationship with the school was pretty exceptional. I hear a lot about other security guards who get dragged into student discipline, and that’s a bad road to go down. But so’s the “sit at your desk and watch cameras all day and none of the kids even know who you are” option. There’s a lot of ways to do security wrong.

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’m in high school. I have many wonderful teachers. I don’t think any of them should be armed. Some of my teachers, and again, I love them, can hardly even operate a DVD player. I do not want any of them to be given firearms.

If any of my high school teachers were armed, I would have flat-out refused to go to school. And I really liked most of my teachers. I can’t even imagine how I’d feel if I had an adversarial relationship with them.

chyron8472 said:

We named the diseases after Star Wars characters based on saber colors. Yellow was Katarn, Red was Maul, Blue was Kenobi.

Funny, black was our COdA too. We just came up with names that sounded like stuff we wouldn’t want to catch in real life. Yellow was weeping pox, blue was creeping ennui (hey, it’s what Europeans get, okay?), and red was crimson slough.

What month are you currently on?

We’d just finished May, faded spilling outside the black borders, so, so, very screwed.

I’ve only played the mobile app, and I didn’t enjoy it very much. I might have liked it better as the physical version, because at least then I’d be playing it with other people.

Oh yeah, that part where you build your spaceship and watch the universe pulverize it with random crap… that’s a lot of fun because people are with you laughing at your completely arbitrary misfortune. Alone I think it would just be dumb and frustrating.

What’s the history on these Czech voiceover dubs? Do they pre-date the first regular dubs? Are they trilogy-complete? One-speaker voiceover or male/female voiceover? Do many Czech fans like to watch the films that way, or is it more of a historical curiosity?

Just asking. I kinda like the concept behind voiceovers.