Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Us government's trick to violate civil liberties
View Single Post
Old 02-08-2012, 09:39 AM   #513
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Originally Posted by ACt View Post
Wrong. I have repeatedly made assertions that I do not know how everything is, but to derive the truth, I have to act upon what I know, what evidence is before me and what I consider to be the most likely (or most probable) explanation. That is what humans do. They don't sit around thinking "anything can happen" but rather "this is most likely the way it is that there is no point waiting for something else to happen."
As far as I'm concerned telling someone they are wrong is the same thing as saying you know everything about the subject at hand. So while I may have been exaggerating/generalizing a bit with the statement, I would say that with every topic that has been broached in here there happens to be several people, if not everyone in here, who thinks they know everything there is to know about it. Basically I think you all act like you're goddamn experts, and then come with something as weak as probability for proof, which makes you all worth ignoring.

You act like the word wrong is your get into other people's heads free card. When really it is just your 'I am a disrespectful sumbitch' fluorescent t-shirt.

Take gravity, as I have already brougth up. We don't have a complete understanding of how it works. Smart humans than us figured out some mathematical calculations about it so they could do things like fire a cannon ball and hit something. They thought they knew how it was. Then Einstein comes along, revamps it with new ideas and information. Yet we still don't know everything. Shall we take your worldview and expect one day things will fall up?
This is a skewed example. Not knowing everything there is to know on a subject is fine. To say what we do know is fine as well. To operate under the assumption that what we do know also applies to what we don't is fine as well. The problem arises when we take what we do know and say it surely applies to what we don't. This is what I have a problem with you all doing. You all are turning it around into bringing up asinine BS that has already been disproven and acting like it applies to my statements when it doesn't. Any argument that involves probability or nit-picking isn't a real argument it's a musing too. I don't act like a musing is an argument because I'm not a moron.

Let's say you had a six sided die. On five of those sides there was a red mark, and on one there is a blue mark. You have a 16.266666% chance of rolling a blue, and an 83.7333% chance of rolling a red mark. The likelihood is that you will roll a red, but you only get to roll once, so it isn't proof that you will. Not at all as a matter of fact.

Good for you. Did you decide to not take a math related career because there was too much probability?
I have no problem with probability, I just have a problem with it being used as a tool in anything where there isn't a multitude of answers (which will all be correct) which includes any sort of discussion of history, science, most things. It's a fairly accurate tool of prediction when used in a large scale, it is never proof of anything. Actually I was going to college to be an electrical engineer, but got kicked out due to attendance reasons. They changed the attendance policy at my school from being more than 5 minutes late equaling being tardy to being more than 5 minutes late equaling being absent without any notification anywhere. My first class was lab which was a co-requisite for all my other classes so I showed up at school one day and was told I didn't go to school there anymore. I was a straight a student the previous semesters and while I was holding down a few bs this time around, it apparently didn't matter. This plus them claiming I owed them money because they had to send the student loans back while the government claimed they never got anything back pretty much prompted my vengeful side and I said 'none of you motherfuckers are getting shit', and maintained that stance until they managed to get the money through wage garnishments.

OK, so you just want us to astrisk everything for you. Allow me.

There is no god.*

*Note: There could be a god for the reasoning behind my statement is that I have encountered zero evidence that god exists and plenty of examples from science and society that humans can coexist happily without a great creator and so feel comfortable living my life on the understanding that god does not exist. However, there could one day be evidence for god and thus the possibility that it does exist is not 0%.

Wow, you're a douche. Do you not see the problem with what you are saying? Future evidence could prove a lot of things wrong but you just can't wait for that evidence. Progress would be terrible (in science, thinking, education, technology etc). I refute that you actually act this way in life. You take care of severely ill people - do you persist with the idea thath possibly none of them are actually sick but faking it so you have a job? I mean, it isn't a high probability, but it could be possible. I saw the Truman Show - perhaps that's you!
I never claimed that I ever operated under the assumption that the least likely of possibilities was in fact the truth, this is just your asinine interpretation of what I did say. My problem is that you all eliminate all but the most likely of possibilities, and act like you are doing the smart thing. To me this is the same thing as saying "I AM INFALLIBLE!!!!" Get out of here with that stupid shit.

Proving many finite things wrong is easy - you provide evidence against them. No, it doesn't remove the possibility, but it shrinks it to the point we don't consider it likely and in the frame of lifespan, it makes it stupid to persist in that idea.
If it doesn't remove the possibility then you would be providing supporting evidence for an opposing viewpoint, but you would not have provided any evidence against the original one.

As for beliefs and ideas, we have repeated stated that are not free from scrutiny. We are allowed to say "we don't believe as you and believe you are wrong" and then provide our reasoning and evidence. When we do that, it is up to you to provide the basis for your believe rather than say "you can't be 100% certain I'm wrong." While we can't, we have good reasoning to be. I cannot waste my time on ideas that are highly unlikely, even if you think they are most likely. And if you are to have a discussion about your beliefs, just stating them and saying "don't tell me I'm wrong" isn't how it works. You are allowed to defend them, but if you don't, then you aren't about to be seen as correct. That you persist in this has us pushing harder to see if you'll actually come up with anything that resembles an adequate defense.
Again it's your presentation. I have no wish to discuss the correctness of anything ever, since it is all subjective unless it is an absolute truth. I have had more than my fill of those types of discussions and never wish to have another. Do you have a right to say/ask anybody anything you want? Yes. If the person has told you in no uncertain terms that they dislike your approach and therefore no answers will be forthcoming and you persist for days on end with nary a sign of the other party budging, sooner or later you really just turn into the equivalent of a creepy stalker.

But by your own words, you don't think anything is more likely and to say otherwise would be saying someone is wrong.
No, by my own words, saying someone is wrong because something is more likely is idiotic.

What happens if he loses his mind? Is he still with himself? You can't even know that. Oh the possibilities!
Oh he's definitely still with himself, he just doesn't realize it at that point.

Last edited by almightywood; 02-08-2012 at 10:17 AM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote