Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greatest Deleted Tweets
#1
Nice collection here from Gizmodo. Trump doesn't even make the cut, nor Giuliani for re-Tweeting a Trump attack account.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/05/the-13-most-notorious-deleted-tweets-in-history/
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#2
I often wished i could delete a few posts here. I've never tweeted, so no regrets there.

As sparky has expressed recently, sometimes i get in that 'mood', and i don't come up with the evidence...generally regarding abstract thoughts regarding pragmatism and uber-materialist atheism.

For sure, i can be an ass, and i do get inebriated on occasion.
And I do cringe from the results.

It is frustrating.

When asked for a sound bite of evidence for some fringe opinions i might have, about the nature of reality, the correct response for me would be to link you to 20 or more books on quantum physics.

Long and difficult books that have been instrumental on the forming of my opinions....none of which are easily reduced to a sentence or two.
You're either interested in this stuff, or not.

Which is why I'm inclined to beg:

Do your own homework.
Which, naturally, is seen as a cop out.

On the fluffier level, the same holds true regarding political opinions.
How do i verify my opinions on all that?

In a sentence or two?

That's an easier problem. We mostly tend to agree.
But my opinions are drenched in 50 years of studying history, and living through a lot of it.
I listen to both sides. Naturally, in spite of that, i have strong opinions.

I'm not suggesting that I'm right and others are wrong...
I'm happy to confess what an asshole I am.
Yet it would be disingenuous to claim that I'm not radically more informed than your average schmoe.

As per political level philosophy, I'll gladly admit that my proclivities lean towards not being a dick.
It's quite possible that being a dick is the more correct angle.
It's possible that Trump is correct, for instance.
Maybe increased income inequality is the thing that will save us.

My gut objection to that brand of thinking is that it never describes itself as such...that it works deception and dishonesty and corruption.

I would find it refreshing if a political movement described itself as the party of corruption and dishonesty.
Reply
#3
" Yet it would be disingenuous to claim that I'm not radically more informed than your average schmoe."

OK, so you think you're radically more informed than the average schmoe. Good for you! Smile

Link to those 50 difficult books on quantum physics and we'll talk about it again, if you can't provide links then piss thee off. SmileSmile



" Do your own homework.
Which, naturally, is seen as a cop out."

Simply because it is a cop out.

Provide your sources please, that's all I'm asking and I dare say TA is in agreement with me on this point. You wanna make some claims? Great! Now, back them up with the material you're basing your claims on, otherwise what you claim is just so much fart gas.

You do see that, don't you?
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#4
You must be endowed with a phenomenal memory Sparky if you can recall the exact source of every tidbit of info whch forms your 'knowledge' and also recall the exact title of the book or mag that you read it from.

Can I just say reeeespect! 'Cos buggered if I can recall where I picked up some science data 20 years ago.
Reply
#5
Now we're getting somewhere.
(btw, it was only 20 books; not 50.)

Still good. All i need to do now is make a link to 20 books on quantum mechanics, I could probably google a list of the best ones. And that would be evidence enough. According to sparky's latest. Wouldn't that be too easy? Like fart gas with minimal methane? Wouldn't it have more fragrance if i take the time to slowly turn you onto other ways of viewing things? A more subjective state?

You seem to want a simple answer to a complex question. I gave you the name and author of the most recent physics book i'm reading.
I've spewed my own single quark hypothesis.
I've made gobs of links to esoteric math shit; written 100's of posts describing other possible interpretations to challenge what i consider the 'stodgy' interpretation.

In qm, there's a mwi (multi-worlds interpretation) of reality that is not contrary to the findings of experiment. It's slightly fringe, but not necessarily wrong. There's dozens of other interpretations that are also not necessarily wrong, regarding the interpretation of the data from the sub-atomic realm.

That's the nature of that beast. It's infuriating. The data is reliable; the experiments, repeatable...but what we're left looking at is baffling and open to a variety of interpretations. Unlike almost all other science, qm is uniquely difficult to pin down in a way that all the scientists are in agreement. They agree on the hard data from cern and such, but how to interpret the data is a nest of hornets.

Which is pretty exciting. For some.

Anyway, I got lost in the meantime.

Sparky, perhaps you have a specific question regarding my long history of dodging the answer or the evidence?
I'd try to answer it.

Meanwhile, J.P. Spears nails something much more light-hearted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLXL6z9JN6k

(it's extra spiritual)
Reply
#6
If you say your knowledge comes from lots more than the average Joe and that it includes 50 books, or 20 books, or even just 2 books, and you proceed to make claims based on that knowledge, the least you could do is link to the bloody books.

I am now officially out of this discussion. It's a fucking repeat performance and I won't have any of it. You make claims and you say these are based on superior knowledge. All I'm asking you to do is share those sources of knowledge, in this case some of the books that you've read.

And you can't fucking do it.

Let's not go here, Umkay? Done it before and it was anything but fun.

Cheers! Smile
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#7
(05-02-2019, 05:34 PM)stanky Wrote:  Still good. All i need to do now is make a link to 20 books on quantum mechanics, I could probably google a list of the best ones. And that would be evidence enough.

The trouble for me is that, whatever is in those books will also be online. You should be able to pinpoint the bit you're after.

Alternatively, by all means post the chapter and book and I'll see if I can find it.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#8
silly debate, with extra irony.

christ, i should know more than the average schmoe. that's hardly bragging. i'm old, and read relentlessly.
everyone here knows more than the average human. We're all old, white middle class humans.
Privileged to be here; to have these devices.

One source of information for me has been right here, and various member's links and our discussions.
How many posts has Di made?
I've read them all.
I'm sure I've learned a few things about koalas and Aussie politics from her, but i'd be arsed to pin them down.

Is it safer to admit that I haven't read a thing; never talked to smart folks; never listened to amazing lectures; never observed the world?
That I'm a complete charlatan that can barely add?

All this because i suggest a subjective aspect to reality that is inherent in the nature of our physics, at the smallest level?
That i occasionally call out pedantic atheists for their paradoxical claims of understanding with no evidence?

It's ironic, for sure.

My bold claim is that we don't understand how it works, and never will. By design.
You ask for the proof, or the evidence of that.

Geeperz, that is some tricky shit.


Back on topic:

Yeah, i wish i could delete some posts (tweets).
Maybe this one.

But what the hell.

I can risk the embarrassment.
We mostly know i'm an unusual character, worth having around for conversation.

same like all of us.

so,

ask me a question. i forget the argument. If I know nothing about the question, by gosh, i'll say so in a heart beat.
If it's a good question, i might dig into it; maybe learn something.
If it's up for grabs, as in the nature of reality, i may go off on some stuff i've thought of.


that's fair, no?
Reply
#9
(05-02-2019, 07:17 PM)The Atheist Wrote:  
(05-02-2019, 05:34 PM)stanky Wrote:  Still good. All i need to do now is make a link to 20 books on quantum mechanics, I could probably google a list of the best ones. And that would be evidence enough.

The trouble for me is that, whatever is in those books will also be online. You should be able to pinpoint the bit you're after.

Alternatively, by all means post the chapter and book and I'll see if I can find it.

Why?

It's all the chapters of all the books.
Is there a particular nugget of objection?

Imagine if I'd never read a drop of biology, and objected to a particular claim a biologist made; demanded evidence.
It would be pointless to provide the details.

You'd rightly suggest that i study biology.

It's cool if you or sparky aren't particular fans of sub-atomic physics or theoretical math or astro physics.
who the fuck is?

It's super abstract stuff.

If you are fans of this esoteric field, perhaps you can tell me what you've read, and we can proceed from there?

Otherwise, it's like trying to tell a stranger about rock and roll.
Reply
#10
(05-02-2019, 10:08 PM)stanky Wrote:  Is there a particular nugget of objection?

I don't see that you've made any claims to object to at this stage.

You're itching to say something, but until you do, I won't offer an opinion on it because I have no clue what it is.

I got that you don't like materialism - that's fine with me, I don't like bourbon. Each to their own.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)