General CE Chat

Raoul said:
Its actually misleading to suggest he would've since you have no evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

I didn't "suggest he would have".

I said it's not objective and not accurate for you to assume he wouldn't have. The only accurate stance is being agnostic and not leaning either way.
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
I didn't "suggest he would have".

I said it's not objective and not accurate for you to assume he wouldn't have. The only accurate stance is being agnostic and not leaning either way.
Click to expand...

If one is agnostic, they should probably not even bother to post about it.

We can safely deduce that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq since he was very vocal about criticizing Bush's actions in his book - Assault on Reason (2007, pg103) where he wrote

".... it is important to understand how such a horrible set of mistakes could have been made in a great democracy. And it is already obvious that the administration’s abnormal and un-American approach to secrecy, censorship, and massive systematic deception is the principal explanation for how America embraced this catastrophe.

Five years after Pres. Bush first made his case for an invasion of Iraq, it is now clear that virtually all of the arguments he made were based on falsehoods. We were told by the president that war was his last choice. But it is now clear that it was always his first preference."
Click to expand...

Gore was also fairly vocal about Bush's policies about military tribunals for suspected terrorists, so based on his actual positions of being anti-the Iraq war, we can safely assume he wouldn't have acted out the same policies he vocally criticized at the time.
 
Carolina Red said:
I take it your also agnostic on if Bernie would have invaded Iraq?
Click to expand...

Its all heuristics and percentages with counterfactuals. Essentially we are just playing speculative fiction games.

I would say the preponderance of the evidence suggests Bernie would not have invaded were he President in 2000-2004 (although that isn't really equivalent since he was nowhere near a Presidential run at that time so to play alternate history it would require helluva lot more changes to the timeline).

With Gore I'd say there is not enough evidence to conclude a Gore-Liberman Presidency would not have invaded. I'd give Gore maybe a 40-50% chance of invading with the added possibility of him losing in 2004 and then the neocons invading.
 
Raoul said:
If one is agnostic, they should probably not even bother to post about it.

We can safely deduce that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq since he was very vocal about criticizing Bush's actions in his book - Assault on Reason (2007, pg103) where he wrote

Gore was also fairly vocal about Bush's policies about military tribunals for suspected terrorists, so based on his actual positions of being anti-the Iraq war, we can safely assume he wouldn't have acted out the same policies he vocally criticized at the time.
Click to expand...

You can't take his comments made in 2007 when the political climate had shifted drastically. No way to know how he actually would have acted so no, it cannot be "safely deduced" at all. First its literally induction you are using not deduction and second, there is no way to conclude that with certainty.

Induction: A process of reasoning (arguing) which infers a general conclusion based on individual cases, examples, specific bits of evidence, and other specific types of premises.

Deduction: A process of reasoning that starts with a general truth, applies that truth to a specific case (resulting in a second piece of evidence), and from those two pieces of evidence (premises), draws a specific conclusion about the specific case.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
You can't take his comments made in 2007 when the political climate had shifted drastically. No way to know how he actually would have acted so no, it cannot be "safely deduced" at all. First its literally induction you are using not deduction and second, there is no way to conclude that with certainty. It's just your opinion.
Click to expand...

Well yes its an opinion that is backed up by actual quotes Gore himself made during the Iraq war, so unless you can refute them with some pro-invasion quotes then its a pretty air tight case that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
 
Raoul said:
Well yes its an opinion that is backed up by actual quotes Gore himself made during the Iraq war, so unless you can refute them with some pro-invasion quotes then its a pretty air tight case that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...

You can't take quotes made after the political climate among the Dems had shifted by someone in completely different situation as proof of a counter-factual. And that is literally induction you are using not deduction.

So you can say "I believe based on Gore's quotes from 2007 that he would not have invaded" but it's simply inaccurate to suggest that you know for 100% what Gore-Lieberman would have done.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I would say the preponderance of the evidence suggests Bernie would not have invaded were he President in 2000-2004
Click to expand...
oneniltothearsenal said:
With Gore I'd say there is not enough evidence to conclude a Gore-Liberman Presidency would not have invaded.
Click to expand...
This just sounds a lot like you’re biasing your response towards the guy you like, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
 
Carolina Red said:
This just sounds a lot like you’re biasing your response towards the guy you like, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

1. You think there is equal evidence for Gore and Bernie regarding whether they would have invaded Iraq? (Bernie voted against Iraq War in 1991 while Gore vote for it, I don't see how those can be reduced to equivalency)

2. You don't think any alternate history scenario that has Bernie Sanders as US President in 2000-2004 doesn't require a helluva lot more underlying changes to make that even reasonable? Its hard to even imagine how much reality would have had to be different than it was for Bernie Sanders(a complete unknown Congressman in 2000) to be the US President in 2000. Speculating on Nader would be a lot more reasonable and I think its safe to say that Nader not going to Iraq is a better bet than Gore not going to Iraq.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
1. You think there is equal evidence for Gore and Bernie regarding whether they would have invaded Iraq? (Bernie voted against Iraq War in 1991 while Gore vote for it, I don't see how those can be reduced to equivalency)

2. You don't think any alternate history scenario that has Bernie Sanders as US President in 2000-2004 doesn't require a helluva lot more underlying changes to make that even reasonable? Its hard to even imagine how much reality would have had to be different than it was for Bernie Sanders to be the US candidate in 2000. Speculating on Nader would be a lot more reasonable and I think its safe to say that Nader not going to Iraq is a better bet than Gore not going to Iraq.
Click to expand...
I'm saying you made this argument...
oneniltothearsenal said:
The only accurate stance is being agnostic and not leaning either way.
Click to expand...
Then switched it as soon as you were asked about a politician that you liked.
 
Carolina Red said:
I'm saying you made this argument...

Then switched it as soon as you were asked about a politician that you liked.
Click to expand...

Being agnostic doesn't preclude speculating about percentages when asked.

If you ask me if I "know" what Bernie or Nader would have done I would say no I do not know. No one cannot "safely deduce" anything about a counterfactual as Raoul asserted.

But I and others can break things down and give percentages if its clear its just speculation. They are two different things. That's the distinction between making assertions and just speculating. Raoul, in his first post, presumed to know, to have explicit knowledge of how something would have happened. That is different than speculating.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Being agnostic doesn't preclude speculating about percentages when asked.

If you ask me if I "know" what Bernie or Nader would have done I would say no I do not know. I cannot "safely deduce" anything as Raoul asserted.

But I can break things down and give percentages if its clear its just speculation. They are two different things.
Click to expand...
How would you do so?
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Being agnostic doesn't preclude speculating about percentages when asked.

If you ask me if I "know" what Bernie or Nader would have done I would say no I do not know. I cannot "safely deduce" anything as Raoul asserted.

But I can break things down and give percentages if its clear its just speculation. They are two different things.
Click to expand...
So it's okay when you do it, but not when @Raoul does it..? Oooookay...
 
Carolina Red said:
So it's okay when you do it, but not when @Raoul does it..? Oooookay...
Click to expand...

You are missing the point.

Raoul said "safely deduced". Deduction and induction are two different things. Raoul tried to assert he can deduce something that cannot be deduced (a counter factual).

Had Raoul not tried to assert absolute knowledge of a counter factual - that is literally what deduction is and how it differs from induction - then it would have been a different story.

What I did in specific response to your question (which I might have misunderstood) was induction. What Raoul originally tried to do was deduction. They aren't the same mate. These words have very precise meanings in logic and are not interchangeable.
 
Carolina Red said:
So it's okay when you do it, but not when @Raoul does it..? Oooookay...
Click to expand...

Surely if said hypothetical discussion was prompted by Raoul suggesting we wouldn't have had an Iraq War under Gore, it's a valid response to point out that invasion would've still been a possible outcome of a Gore presidency? It's hardly a far-fetched suggestion.
 
Revan said:
How would you do so?
Click to expand...

In the only way possible - by induction. Raoul is in the wrong because he cannot deduce a counter factual. He tried to assert a counter factual situation as an actual fact which is not valid.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
You are missing the point.

Raoul said "safely deduced". Deduction and induction are two different things. Raoul tried to assert he can deduce something that cannot be deduced (a counter factual).

Had Raoul not tried to assert absolute knowledge of a counter factual - that is literally what deduction is and how it differs from induction - then it would have been a different story.

What I did in specific response to your question (which I might have misunderstood) was induction. What Raoul originally tried to do was deduction. They aren't the same mate. These words have very precise meanings in logic and are not interchangeable.
Click to expand...
Cheesy said:
Surely if said hypothetical discussion was prompted by Raoul suggesting we wouldn't have had an Iraq War under Gore, it's a valid response to point out that invasion would've still been a possible outcome of a Gore presidency? It's hardly a far-fetched suggestion.
Click to expand...
@Raoul never argued in the absolute. He literally said "I'm pretty sure" that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq had he been in office.

There's also the fact that Gore gave a speech in 2002 criticizing Bush's policy towards Iraq, stating that invading Iraq at that time was a mistake and that it should only be done with the type of massive international support that Bush Sr. had in 1991.
 
Carolina Red said:
@Raoul never argued in the absolute. He literally said "I'm pretty sure" that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq had he been in office.

There's also the fact that Gore gave a speech in 2002 criticizing Bush's policy towards Iraq, stating that invading Iraq at that time was a mistake and that it should only be done with the type of massive international support that Bush Sr. had in 1991.
Click to expand...

He literally said "it can be safely deduced". As I quoted in logic deduction has a precise meaning and that precise meaning IS absolute.

When Raoul says "it can be safely deduced" that literally means logically that he is asserting 100% that something would have happened.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/2020-us-presidential-elections.433222/page-289#post-24579523

Oh and saying "Gore would only have invaded with massive international support" is a lot fecking different from "Gore wouldn't have invaded"
 
Revan said:
That's not how percentage works.
Click to expand...

An example of what I mean is this:

  1. Bernie voted against the 1991 Iraq War.
  2. Gore vote for the 1991 Iraq War.
  3. Therefore I believe Bernie has a lower percentage chance of going to war in 2000 had he been president than Gore.

That's what I mean by percentage not guesstimating some precise percent number

---
Its like saying in football "if we played that match 100 times, I think X side would have won 75 of those".

That's different than saying "we can safely deduce X would have happened" which impliess a 100 out of 100.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
He literally said "it can be safely deduced". As I quoted in logic deduction has a precise meaning and that precise meaning IS absolute.

When Raoul says "it can be safely deduced" that literally means logically that he is asserting 100% that something would have happened.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/2020-us-presidential-elections.433222/page-289#post-24579523

Oh and saying "Gore would only have invaded with massive international support" is a lot fecking different from "Gore wouldn't have invaded"
Click to expand...
You're pretty much the only person I know who would take that to the pedantic logical/philosophical extreme in a casual conversation about the results of an election. Anyone with a bit of common sense about the conversation would know that he means the same as "you can safely assume...".

Oh and was there massive international support in 2002/2003? That's what I thought.
 
Carolina Red said:
You're pretty much the only person I know who would take that to the pedantic logical/philosophical extreme in a casual conversation about the results of an election. Anyone with a bit of common sense about the conversation would know that he means the same as "you can safely assume...".

Oh and was there massive international support in 2002/2003? That's what I thought.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to apologize for words having precise meanings

Raoul is pretty much the only person I know that ever uses phrases like "we can safely deduce" and then doubles down on asserting knowledge of things that didn't actually happen.
 
freeurmind said:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368370601054894
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/49/2/011/meta
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30196934
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29884550
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29709736

I could go on and on and on, there's loads.
Click to expand...

Judging by the abstracts, all of those have to do specifically with cell-phone use (i. e. holding it next to your head). That's a completely different thing than claiming that WiFi is in any way harmful.
 
nimic said:
Judging by the abstracts, all of those have to do specifically with cell-phone use (i. e. holding it next to your head). That's a completely different thing than claiming that WiFi is in any way harmful.
Click to expand...
Not sure if this is serious but if serious here's an article explaining some of the basic science, challenges facing research into this topic and the reasoning behind certain countries adopting certain policies regarding the use of Wifi in buildings desinged for use by children https://www.wirelesseducation.org/1073-2/

Here's a link to the IARC basis for classification as possibly carcinogenic. http://publications.iarc.fr/_public.../6464cac7e8eca3fa20f11d4d134613e4870158c5.pdf

Sorry if I derailed the thread, I'll leave it here.
 
freeurmind said:
Not sure if this is serious but if serious here's an article explaining some of the basic science, challenges facing research into this topic and the reasoning behind certain countries adopting certain policies regarding the use of Wifi in buildings desinged for use by children https://www.wirelesseducation.org/1073-2/

Here's a link to the IARC basis for classification as possibly carcinogenic. http://publications.iarc.fr/_public.../6464cac7e8eca3fa20f11d4d134613e4870158c5.pdf

Sorry if I derailed the thread, I'll leave it here.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is serious, because...

a) your "article" is published on a site whose stated aim is:

Quite simply we visualise a day when:
  • Children tell their parents to switch off the wireless router or turn their mobile into flight mode, because they learned about the risks at school.
Not exactly a paragon of objectivity.

b) You posted a 481 page PDF and said "here's a link", as if that's in any way helpful. I'm also not at all convinced you've actually read the study yourself, considering...

c) Your 481 page PDF clearly focuses on mobile phones, and has the following to say about WiFi (which is what I was talking about):

The rapid reduction in field strength that occurs with increasing distance means that SARs can be expected to be much lower than from mobile phones under such scenarios.
Click to expand...

Studies have also examined the general field strengths in environments where Wi-Fi networks are installed. Foster (2007) measured RF fields at 55 public and private sites in the US and Europe (4 countries) (. . .) In nearly all cases, the measured Wi-Fi signals were far lower than other RF signals in the same environment.
Click to expand...

In general, the exposure values were several orders of magnitude below the ICNIRP (1998) reference levels.
Click to expand...

And in any case, as you say the study found only a possible connection, while also noting that:

The minority also pointed to the fact that no increase in rates of glioma or acoustic neuroma was seen in a nation-wide Danish cohort study, and that up to now, reported time trends in incidence rates of glioma have not shown a trend parallel to time trends in mobile-phone use.
Click to expand...
 
nimic said:
Not sure if this is serious, because...
Click to expand...
a) So tell me the statements in the article that are false or which one of the cited studies is not objective.
b) So if theres no risk, why classify it 2B lol? The animal studies are pretty conclusive and well neither cell phones and certainly not Wifi routers have been in general use for long enough to make a determination from incidence rates that there are no links, especially regarding long term effects for children. We simply don't know yet and won't know for sure for another 10 to 15 years at least.
 
berbatrick said:
Brexiteers have fantasised about her drowning and now more mainstream conservatives say:



The conservative movement in the us and UK is driven by some death wish towards everyone else in the planet and it has international collaborators and will win.
Click to expand...


She was shredded in the comments, stopped short of responding to actual facts. Would be a typical RWNJ in the States.
 
berbatrick said:
Brexiteers have fantasised about her drowning and now more mainstream conservatives say:



The conservative movement in the us and UK is driven by some death wish towards everyone else in the planet and it has international collaborators and will win.
Click to expand...


The 'conservative movement' will not win off the back of Julia Hartley Brewer's ridiculously fecking stupid tweets! Remember this is the woman who used the anniversary of the Omagh bombings to try and score poi ts from Jeremy Corbyn and the same woman who had her invite to to speak to the GMC revoked after her support of Enoch Powell on twitter, she is a twitter star for the ignorant, no more than that. There are lots of other people that we should be far more worried about.

EDIT: sorry it was the RCGP not the GMC
 
berbatrick said:


The conservative movement in the us and UK is driven by some death wish towards everyone else in the planet and it has international collaborators and will win.
Click to expand...






https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...o-accuses-ngos-setting-fire-amazon-rainforest

They threaten humanity. I used to think it was for short-term profit but it goes beyond that, I doubt the profits from killing some hundred thousand more cows are all that high. There is a death-drive in the modern conservative movement.
 
[Moved from here because of off-topic]
berbatrick said:
Using power to transform the world fundamentally - that is something the left has forgotten is possible.

(...)

Boris today is another example. He is creating history.
If there is world left to inherit from them, the parliamentary left should study and learn from Mitch McConnell, Boris, and the left in power should learn from Modi, Netanyahu, etc.
Click to expand...
I always suspected this to be a core idea behind the 'left wing populism' some on here champion, so I'm kind of glad you spelled it out. Frankly, I think it's a dead end - not necessarily for gaining (state) power, but for using it in any other way than to reproduce the power-based institutions and relationships it's supposed to overcome. The initial result might be somewhat prettier or perhaps even nastier - history has seen both -, but imo it will ultimately result in the repetition of 'the same old shit'.

Bottom line for me: You can't copy the basic political forms and practises of the established order, let alone the variants specific to the right, and fill them with a radically different social content. These forms aren't neutral vessels, compatible with any political purpose, they have their own intrinsic practical logic, and they will transform those who try to instrumentalize them, not vice versa. The ever-repeating tragedy of the reformist (and, in different ways, larger parts of the historical revolutionary) left.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.