telligence. But one points to the other side and claims they are more stup id. This explains it and it does make sense.
ey are "hyper-attuned" to hazards. They beleive it's better to believe a ha zard may exist than ignore it.
in thinking critically.
berals to believe conspiracy theories that align with their beliefs.
has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out."
t types of misinformation, but you want to make it a 1 sided story while de nying it's 1 sided.
s, and
h
out
of academia. But remember all the stuff they came up with, including the In ternet.
n conservative, and yet I can change my oil, do house repairs, and design e lectronic products.
'm just very picky (scratches, etc) and refuse to hand it over for things I can do myself. But this is a digression. Nothing wrong with taking a car i n for an oil change.
sical, dangerous stuff?
A Gaussian - bell-shaped - curve isn't bimodal. A distribution can be, but John Larkin should have enough sense to know that he needs to provide a li nk to an illustrative distribution to make the point
This is a fairly elementary mathematical point, and it does reinforce the o bvious point that John Larkin rarely knows what he is talking about, and ha s probably invented a "bimodal" distribution that exists only in his imagin ation.
), and the KKK tend to also be conservatives, while academia, tech heavy ar eas, and up until recently, unions were liberal/voted Democrat. I'm sure m any more demographics could be placed into each bucket. Trying to claim one or the other is less macho/human/smart/whatever doesn't make a lot of sens e.
ner are highly educated and together earn way more than the average couple and contribute to society. Not sure why all the hate.
e. But one points to the other side and claims they are more stupid. This explains it and it does make sense.
yper-attuned" to hazards. They beleive it's better to believe a hazard may exist than ignore it.
ng critically.
believe conspiracy theories that align with their beliefs.
r worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comm ents and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out."
f misinformation, but you want to make it a 1 sided story while denying it' s 1 sided.
Yep. Walking the Senate office building during the O-saster years, the halls were filled with skinny white 24-year old lawyers who'd never held a hammer, writing laws and regulations for all the people who make a living at it.
There's no physical principle that says that there can be only one right-wing half-wit with a feeble grasp of reality. The relevant statistics are Bose-Einstein, not Fermi.
nce. But one points to the other side and claims they are more stupid. Th is explains it and it does make sense.
"hyper-attuned" to hazards. They beleive it's better to believe a hazard ma y exist than ignore it.
king critically.
to believe conspiracy theories that align with their beliefs.
ver worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two co mments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out."
of misinformation, but you want to make it a 1 sided story while denying i t's 1 sided.
Writing regulations is a different skill from wielding a hammer.
James Arthur clearly wants the regulations written in a way that lets his f riends make more money, as opposed to stopping greedy businessmen from cutt ing corners and endangering the health and safety of the public.
Apparently the Republican party is deeply split between those representativ es who have really safe seats, who are correspondingly enthusiastic about b uttering up wealthy businessmen, and those representatives who can't risk a lienating voters by endangering them.
Trump is now buddying up with the Democrats, who are a more coherent group.
My very limited understanding is that there are bits bolted onto the Koran, the Hadith or something.
Nonetheless there is a marked tendency to treat both as works that cannot be questioned, and where nuances of meaning are argued about to a ridiculous extent. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and all that.
Yet neither type of occupation provides more insight into discriminating fake news where there is little feedback unless you dig around a little bit and apply reasoning. Which of your two groups is more likely to do that?
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
It looks like the antifa-loving, anti-free-speech thing has peaked and gone back some. And the lefty press is a little less absurd these days. The Berkeley cops are starting to do their jobs, protecting everyone. The slow negative feedback is kicking in. I think a generation of students will react against the boring group-think (and miserable social justice courses) they have been exposed to... another slow feedback.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
As noted, the US constitution has been amended many times. The basic idea of a Constitution is that the People agree on the law under which they are governed. The amendment process is, by design, slow and deliberate, to keep things from changing too fast, and to respect the rights of regions and minorities. It was really well designed.
What's amazing is that all three branches of government respect and defer to the Constitution. Even more amazing is that the other two branches of government respect the Supreme Court's final say on constitutional interpretation. To paraphrase somebody (Stalin?), the Courts have no army.
I think of the Constitution as the equivalent to the unprovable axioms of mathematics, an agreed moral basis for everything else.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
There would seem to be irony in the fact that some consider the second amendment the final barrier against tyranny while utilizing that clause for the overthrow of the US government would in fact be treason against the Constitution. A bit of a paradox, no?
I find it a bit absurd to use the term "moral" in the context of law. The law is in no way related to morality. The law is used and abused by the few to the detriment of the many. Ignorance is not bliss. We have a legal system, not a justice system.
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
tionable, are you ok with the POTUS publicly belittling anyone who gets in in way? Like I mentioned somewhere else on SED, I'd be in the HR office, or worse, if I did some of the crap he does.
hat
e.
wer
f
ng
r self-imagined 'elite.'
ce,
er
making
ible.
d
le.
the person in charge of investigating the firing, without some questioning and investigation from Congress and other gov't agencies.
Doesn't matter what Hilary said in this case. Comey set off the Mueller inv estigation and someone is going to get the book thrown at them.
No, what are you, stupid? He gets to pick and choose what facts to believe. If Trump says 1+1=3, he'll find a way to prove it's true even if that means claiming the ancient Indians, Greeks and Arabs were wrong in their math theories.
No. They only advocate resistance if the government violates the Constitution.
"You can't legislate morality", we've been told. The absurdity of this claim is that the Constitution was inspired by the Enlightenment, in which it was argued that humans are unique among animals because we have the "moral sense", which is the sense of right and wrong, and that is the reason we were thought to be able to govern ourselves. The old idea was that only the king knows right from wrong. So you're claiming that the law can't be based on right and wrong. Then what is law supposed to be based on? The latest fad?
Many believe that has already happened. The bottom line is the government decides when the Constitution is violated. right?
Law is not about, "right and wrong". No two people will agree in all cases what is right and what is wrong. So how can the law define what is right and wrong? It doesn't. It defines what is legal. That's all.
The application of law deviates even further from "right and wrong". It depends on people doing what they are supposed to do and doing it 100%. None of us are perfect and often we have ulterior motives. I have seen people convicted in court of offenses they were not guilty of because they didn't understand the law. Even when this was obvious the prosecution didn't care, all the easier for them and the judge can't rule other than on the evidence. The defense attorney was doing the minimum required, being in court. So much for the law being about "right and wrong".
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.