< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 94 OF 94 ·
|Sep-11-17|| ||Travis Bickle: Big Pawn, I apologize for my last post. If you want to post poetry feel free as it's not my site.|
|Sep-11-17|| ||Dr Winston OBoogie: I don't apologise for nothing because I think you're pathetic but I don't mind you posting poetry because as of now I won't be able to see it :) And if my mate KS carries on he goes in the Iggy bin too and it'll break the poor lady's heart! Think about others #OinkOink|
|Sep-11-17|| ||Arconax: <Dr.Boogie: I don't apologise for nothing..>|
This comes as no surprise.
|Sep-11-17|| ||diceman: < Will anyone in Washington ever listen?>|
Only when you show them the door.
Thank goodness death will inflict term limits on John McCain.
|Sep-11-17|| ||Big Pawn: Apology accepted <Travis>, enjoy your day.|
|Sep-12-17|| ||diceman: <Big Pawn:
So the question is, what should be taught in high school? What should be eliminated to make time for what is not currently being taught?>
Lets not pretend these folks are interested in education.
School today is about liberalism and indoctrination.
Testing is bad, standards are bad, history is bad. Expecting results is racist.
It's really about the Teacher's Union,
teacher's pay/benefits, and how can they do as little as possible.
Pass/Fail based on opinion/merit, so they can shove the slugs through the system, and pat themselves on the back
for being "great" teachers.
I have a cousin who is married to a NYC teacher. We call her "the babysitter."
The monstrosity known as "Government"
and a liar media, have made these things almost impossible to discuss honestly. Folks discuss things in a
vacuum, without reference to the lies, agendas, involved.
All "discussions" of "solutions" should
probably start with something like:
Hey, lets pretend:
1. The Media is honest
2. Politicians care about the people
3. Politicians know they work for us
4. Politicians care about America
5. Politicians care about low-cost solutions that work.
6. Politicians have no interest in their own wealth, power.
Until one gets past the lies and gobbledegook of liberalism, everything else is yap, yap, yap.
<so they can shove the slugs through the system>
Hey, let the companies train them.
After all, they're the evil profiteers.
|Sep-13-17|| ||Troller: This is a very late answer, but
<You are factually wrong here. To posit the proposition, "God does not exist" is to make a positive claim to knowledge.>
The positive claim would be to say
1. God exists
Before this claim has been proven, the default presumption would be that God does not exist.
There are people who worship the old Norse gods and claim that they exist and control the universe. Are you saying they are as correct in this claim as any Christian? Or can you prove that they are wrong?
<Or> can we say that until the existence of this pantheon has been proven, we do not consider it?
It is impossible to go anywhere with logic, if always the negative statement would have to be proven, as there are thousands of beliefs that we cannot really prove or disprove. So indeed the idea of burden of proof lying on the <positive claim> (i.e. "such and such exists) is necessary in this respect.
|Sep-13-17|| ||Big Pawn: <The positive claim would be to say|
1. God exists>
That is a positive claim, because it is a claim to knowledge.
1. God does not exist - this is also a positive claim. It claims to know something true about the universe.
|Sep-13-17|| ||Big Pawn: <Before this claim has been proven, the default presumption would be that God does not exist.>|
That fallacy is known as the presumption of atheism.
Anyone who makes a positive claim to knowledge carries a burden of proof.
For further reading from a source biased toward atheism, go to the link I provided at commonsenseatheism.com and read up on burdens of truth and positive truth claims.
|Sep-13-17|| ||Big Pawn: <the <positive claim> (i.e. "such and such exists) is necessary in this respec>|
What makes this a positive claim to knowledge is *not* positing existence versus non existence. The positive claim is that one claims to know some truth about the universe. That is a positive claim.
So if you make a positive claim about a negative, like, "there are no elephants in my refrigerator", then you carry a burden of proof for that claim.
<It is impossible to go anywhere with logic, if always the negative statement would have to be proven, as there are thousands of beliefs that we cannot really prove or disprove.>
That's a fallacy.
Negative statement: In American, there is no such state as the <big pawn> state.
2. No planets exist between Earth and Venus.
3. No married bachelors exist.
So when one makes a positive claim to knowledge, whether one posits the existence or non existence of something, one carries the burden of proof, and, don't fall for the layman's fallacy that a negative can't be demonstrated.
Go to the link at commonsenseatheism.com that I gave you in the reply from last week and read what atheist philosophers think about the burden of proof. It's not controversial.
|Sep-14-17|| ||Big Pawn: The Soviet Roots of Today's Corporate Censorship|
< We’ve entered a precedented era of censorship.
“[We wish to] . . . set out a principled and politically correct statute . . . explaining the essence and justification of terror, its necessity and scope.”
Vladimir Lenin to Dmitrii Kurskii, People’s Commissar of Justice, May 17, 1922
“If you took everyone in the BNP [ British National Party] and everyone who votes for them and shot them in the back of the head there would be a brighter future for us all . . .”
Jeremy Hardy, Jeremy Hardy Speaks to the Nation, BBC Radio 4, September 9, 2004
In 1992, I wrote my first article about the phenomenon of political correctness that was then emerging in Britain, identifying and explaining the Soviet legacy. I was later told that PC was just the latest American fad and that I was dramatically overstating the dangers. A quarter of a century later, there can be no doubt that the emergence of PC—this then strange-sounding term that started to hit the headlines in the late 1980s—and the movements associated with it, such as feminism, anti-racism and multiculturalism, has inflicted untold damage on Western societies. The final aim is clear enough:...>
Read the rest of the article by clicking the link - it's worth the read.
|Sep-14-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Premium Chessgames Member Big Pawn: The Soviet Roots of Today's Corporate Censorship|
< We’ve entered a precedented era of censorship.>>
Excellent article! Thanks for the find.
Here is another part that resonates:
<...the core methods deployed by advocates of multiculturalism to silence and censor dissenters are overwhelmingly derived from Lenin. The key elements are censorship (of literature, film, science and politics); film and entertainment as propaganda (role models, blacks as geniuses, women as warriors, white men as evil);...>
When I first noticed that TV and movies were vilifying white men almost exclusively, and glorifying women and minorities (especially Blacks), I thought it was a PC fad. Over 20 years later, I am sure that it is not.
Another thing I noticed - the "critics" praise this. A good example of this is the TV show ER. They killed off the white male star, who was the original lead character of the series, and elevated a black man and immigrant to be the heroic male main characters. The only white male regular character remaining was portrayed as a sniveling, subservient screw up.
The critics praised it as powerful. This long-time viewer quit watching.
|Sep-15-17|| ||technical draw: <BP> You said this back on Sept 5th: <Clearly, segregation does not automatically imply racism.>|
I agree and when I catch up reading the rest of the posts I might add my own opinion. I lived through the Jim Crow era so I have personal experience that I can use.
|Sep-16-17|| ||diceman: <Big Pawn:
<Vladimir Lenin to Dmitrii Kurskii, People’s Commissar of Justice, May 17, 1922
“If you took everyone in the BNP [ British National Party] and everyone who votes for them and shot them in the back of the head there would be a brighter future for us all . . .”>>
Sounds like they had <a “basket of deplorables,”> way before Hillary Clinton.
|Sep-17-17|| ||harrylime: What sites do you play chess on ?|
|Sep-18-17|| ||diceman: <Big Pawn:
I do not think racism exists now or ever has existed.>
Sounds like, "Self-Esteem."
|Sep-18-17|| ||OhioChessFan: <The skeptic really doesn’t have much hope in justifying a rejection of objective morals. Which is why you should press them to try. And remind them that if they buckle under the pressure, they have to deal with their prior acceptance of the other premise of the moral argument (i.e. ‘If God doesn’t exist, objective morals don’t exist’>|
|Sep-19-17|| ||Big Pawn: <harrylime: What sites do you play chess on ?>|
Chess.com 1 minute.
|Sep-19-17|| ||Big Pawn: < technical draw: <BP> You said this back on Sept 5th: <Clearly, segregation does not automatically imply racism.>|
I agree and when I catch up reading the rest of the posts I might add my own opinion. I lived through the Jim Crow era so I have personal experience that I can use.>
I have a black friend who's 68 years old, lived through the Jim Crow era, worked on a plantation in Alabama, and says that blacks were better off then than now. He also agrees with me that racism has never existed. He, like me, didn't always think that, but he does now. As a matter of fact, he's the one that persuaded me to believe the same thing.
|Sep-19-17|| ||OhioChessFan: Got The Republic out of the library today. Have not been in a reading mood and have been very short on time the last couple weeks but I'll give it a shot.|
|Sep-20-17|| ||Big Pawn: <Ohio>, that is most excellent indeed! Every time I read it, I take my time and allow for plenty of reflection and understanding. I think I read it more when I'm not actually reading it, if you know what I mean. I'll read 10 pages and put it down for a day, thinking about it off and on for an evening and part of the next day, then read 10 more pages. |
After the bible, The Republic just may be the most influential book of all times.
|Sep-20-17|| ||Tiggler: I read The Origin of Species for the first time recently. I think that may be more influential than The Republic.|
|Sep-20-17|| ||Big Pawn: <Tiggler>, that is a recent book by comparison, but is an influential book. Yet, The Republic is far broader in range and influence in so many different ways. It covers more fundamental ground than the OOS.|
|Sep-21-17|| ||Tiggler: <Big Pawn> Did you read it? Plenty of opinion on Darwin from people who never read him. And it is quite easy to read, compared, say, to Newton's Principia.|
|Sep-21-17|| ||Big Pawn: Yes, <Tiggler>, but the fact is that it's a recent book on only speaks to one issue. The Republic is second in influence only to the bible on many levels and more fundamental issues. Aristotle was greatly influenced by Plato, including The Republic, and he is the great, great, grandfather of all of science. |
Again, if you haven't read The Republic, then you're *not* an educated person.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 94 OF 94 ·
Daily puzzles, news, and more!