n8nrgmi

I didn't say he fucked it up, I just said ur article didn't do much to explain how he helped... It was empty praise

you're doin a good job debating rationalmadman but you still shoouldn't have posted an article that was all about praising raeagan, when the one thing it mentioned was done by the federal reserve and not reagan. all the reagan stuff was irrelevant. you should have just argued that interest rates need to be used, and left your reagan adoration for another debate. it's also another story about what would happen to your beloved stock market if interest rates go up. gonna have to pick between having inflation subdued and keeping the stock market propped up eventually. 

your article doesn't really say what reagan did to stop inflation. the article mentions that the federal reserved increased intersest rates, but the article admits that's not reagan's doing so much. the article tries to claw back and give him credit, but doesnt' say what he did. if anything, lowering taxes and boosting the economy was bad for inflation, and if it actually went down, it was despite reagan, not because of him. 

also you asked once, so most of my evidence is based on two books, 'evidence of the afterlife' and 'God and the afterlife' both by the author Dr. Jeffrey Long. it's also worth lookin into books by neurosurgeon Dr Alexander and cardio pulmonary surgeon Dr Parnia. Parnia also is the author of the AWARE studies. 

................. see last post 

i pointed out to you that surveys and interviews of out of body experiences show highly accurate evidence of out of body experiences. what do you respond with? 

"So having no reason to assume surveys are not accurate doesn’t make them valid, it makes them tentatively acceptable. As far as how tentative, that’s where Occam’s razor comes into play. And given what they are alleging, it’s not unreasonable at all to question their accuracy, which again would not be a problem if these phenomenon were repeatable, which they’re not, so we’re left with very little to support any of this."

basically, you said 1. a bare assertion that you think it's reasonable to question if they actually are accurate 2. the point that these examples have not been repeated in a lab. 3. you also point out occam's razor

a bare assertion isn't an argument. pointing out that these have not been repeated in a lab is a good point, but it's not enough to counter point the fact that there are so many witnesses corroborating the examples. you didn't elaborate on your occam's razor point but i think that point is just a repeat that you think the simplest solution is that my evidence isn't accurate. everything comes back to you to the point that you think hallucinations are the simplest solution, so you ignore all evidence that shows it's more than that. 

basically, you provide a lot of bluster, but very little in the way of actual logic or science. this actually is a great example of someone, you, thinking you have provided competent rebuttal, but in fact have provided nothing of worth. a great example of dunning kruger effect.

i've provided you with lots of evidence. you struggle to provide a coherent counter point. so, my point to you is that 'that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.  find some actual evidence to back up your claims before you try responding next time. 

i say gretchen becomes president for eight years, and that gives pete some time to get more experience and mature more. then he can become president for eight years. amy would be a good fit somewhere in there too. 

you dont like my criteria for whether something is valid or repeatable, i get it. using your standards, the evidence i presented isn't valid or repeatable. but it could be said to be both of those under different criteria. if you ask someone what happened outside of their body when they were dead, and all witnesses say it was accurate, that's evidence that they had an actual out of body experience. sometimes doctors verify that they were doing things that no patient could have known. when you consistently ask several different people, and they are consistently accurate, that's strong evidence they had out of body experiences actually. we have no reason to assume this stuff isn't accurate, the surveys, so it's valid. anyone can do these surveys and get the same results, so it's repeatable. i agree that there haven't been any strong examples (there are studies like this, but i question if they are accurate and can be done repeatedly) where under experiement someone reads something on paper that is impossible to have read unless they had out of body visions. but that just means it's not valid or repeatable under your criteria. but ask random people to close their eyes and guess at the things that happen and they will usually be way off.  this is objectively evidence. even if it's just anecdotes, it's evidence. haven't you ever heard of anecdotal evidence? by definition, this is all evidence. it's  completely irrational and idiotic to say it's not evidence. it's at least circumstantial evidence.  

the fact that people die and experience afterlife stories is more than a tautology. if i go to south america and see penguins, that's evidence that there are penguins in south america. if someone dies and says they experienced the afterlife, that's evdience for the afterlife. this is more than a truism. it's going from point A to point B, being dead, having an afterlife experience. 

you also confuse probable with possible.

-it's not probable that someone would hallucinate only family and dead people. if it's just a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent. all your arguments for why it's possible that would happen to people so consistently is just that... you are showing a possiblity. not a probablity. based on all dreams, hallucinations, and drugs that we know.... that shouldn't be that way, as a matter of probability. 

-it's possible scientists were mistaken when surveying people for out of body experiences, but given it's been done by so many scientis and anyone can do surveys themselves, it's not probable. 

The ideas go together racism and CRT in my mind.  The onus is on u to define how they're different enough to justify distinguishing

Why would someone agree that blacks get disproportionate discriminated and still denounce the theory? Why dispute that discrimination makes life harder for blacks?

Anyone who thinks racism dont exist or that blacks don't get disproportionately discriminated against is ignorant or irrational

When blacks r turned down for jobs or avoided due to their skin, that's built in prejudice, the whole point of the theory. Attempts to say the theory have no basis r irrational.

these unvax hospital staff dont believe in science, and are killing people. unvax people spread the virus to vulnerable populations that they serve. i'm not saying biden's mandate is or isn't good, i'm just saying on a case by case basis, hospitals are better off firing the hold outs, if they can handle finding replacements. there's no good science that says it's smart to stay un vax, especially if you do something like work at a hospital with vulnerable populations. 

here is more on the NDEs of blind people

you're like one of those christians that like to say God is real because the bible says he is. i'd say that's how weak your argument here is, but sadly your argument is even weaker than that. 

u just keep ignoring all the evidence. the only way for you to be right, is for the evidence to be fabricated. i've shown evidence that blind people see in NDEs and ive shown that out of body experiences are highly accurate in what they report. it's more than just a really big number where sometimes people get it right.. it's a really big number where when measured, people almost always get it right.  all the other lines of evidence are at least consistent with people visiting an afterlife, but really it's more than just consistent given it's not plausible for the alternatives to be true. for example, it shouldn't be the case that people only hallucinate family and dead people... if all it is is a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent. you fail your own test. the alternative hypothesis/explanation isn't shown the be best. why do you keep ignoring this stuff? i'd think you'd at least engage my specific evidence but you avoid it like a disease. 

also, you keep harping on validiity and repeatability but you just dont like the 'degree' by which NDEs are shown to be valid or repeatable. anyone can measure all the evidence i've shown, and reach the same conclusion... plus many people consistently experience this, another aspect showing repeatability. just because you can't go to a lab and do all this stuff, doesn't mean it's absolutely not repeatable. at the very least it's circumstantial evidence, but you irratinoally would call circumstantial evidence not evidence just because it doesn't fit your agenda. also, per validity... these things are shown to be consistent and they on their face show evidence for what we argue... by definition when people r dying and say they're experiencing the afterlife, that's evidence for the afterlife. all you can do is irratinally assert it isn't. also, all the lines of evidence i've shown are accurate we should assume, so that adds to the validity too. it may not be valid to a degree to which you like, but validity is established. 

i'm not just arguing from ignorance, everything i am arguing is based on evidence. ignorance arguing has no evidence and rests completely on speculation. the opposite of what i'm doing. 

philosophically, if it's common for people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, that's prime facie evidence that an afterlife might exist. even if i were to admit that an afterlife isn't most probable... it's objectively possible based on the evidence. that's why it's objectively irrational to say there's not even evidence for an afterlife. 

you do a lot of merely asserting stuff. 

"And how do you justify your claim that the afterlife is the simplest explanation for these experiences? Because we already know there’s an afterlife." 

no one is making that claim. i said an afterlife is the simplest solution, because there's no science behind the idea of hallucations, just hunches. there's no after life gene or anything in our brain that causes this that we know of. you assert it's chemicals, but no known chemicals causes people to have such vivid afterlife stories. and it's not uncommon for many people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die. complete mystery as to how our body would cause it but you assert it's obvious that that's what's going on. 

but that's just the philsophical points that's wrong with your argument. you go even further and ignore a whole book of evidence about the afterlife and assert there's not a shred of evidence. it's more than just a law of big numbers causing out of body experiences to be so accurate... they are almost always accurate, whereas just guessing what happened out of one's body is almost always wrong. you just ignore this. it's almost always the case that only dead people are met in NDEs and it's almost always family members.... if this was a hallucination that likely wouldn't be so consistent, but you just ignore it. blind people dont just start seeing when they have an NDE, but you just ignore this point. (but i adknowledge that even i'm skeptical, cause i dont know how a brain would process something they've never experienced before) there's no reason young kids and people who've never heard of NDEs would experience the exact same thing as everyone else,,, you just assert that it's what's happening though. i could go on and on line by line with all the evidence that you irrationally assert isn't evidence. 

........

We say ndes r proof of an afterlife... We don't say that the afterlife is proof of ndes. Thought I'd clear up that strawman up first. But by your logic u think brain chemicals r proof of ndes and u think ndes r proof of brain chemicals. Circular

i'd like it if chris christie became president at some point. he's no non sense like trump tries to be, and blunt and all that jazz. chris is more politically savvy and has a lotta common sense. i tend not to vote for republians, but i would consider him against someone like kamaltoe. (kamala)

Also that international study of gun control laws also looked at the USA specifically and reached the same conclusion

There was also a poll included of scientists from america that showed the consensus is that gun control is effective, and the correlation of murder with gun presence is also american studies/consensus

i've been posting this evidence for years, ya'll gun nuts never believe it, even though it's the scientific consensus. 

guneducationalinformation.weebly.com

The consensus within science is that more gun control areas have less murder and there's an overwhelming amount of consensus in science that says the presence of guns increases the murder rate. It's actually common sense that that's true but the science is there too for skeptics even tho radicals can't be convinced of anything

There's nothing arrogant in trying to lessen the damage we're objectively doing. All these arguments around that just reflect a lack of critical thinking on behalf of the ones arguing them. 

So u think if he was guarding property and someone tried something that he wouldn't have done anything provocative enough to instigate an altercation? If he did anything significant it was a recipe for someone gettin shot.  I guess u acknowledge he's just a stupid kid so maybe u r right he's not complete culpable for his portion of death. But if he's not culpable for being an instigator he's at least culpable for poor judgement

Even if it's self defense y'all r basically just saying it's OK that he went there to shoot people.  Don't pretend that's not ur position cause its the only plausible position u could argue

It seems gullible to me to think he was just trying to scare people from doin wrong. If a person is aggressive to go there with an ak in the first place then u would think hed try to stop them somehow and it's all downhill from there. 

one of the main reasons he went there was to protect property. he testified that he knew lethal force isnt allowed to protect property... so what he was intending was if he had to, to wait for an attack on himself and then shoot people. it was a "come at me bro" attitude that he clearly had. that's why it's exactly like messing with lions and then being forced to shoot one, and then wondering why people are mad at you for messing with lions to begin with. everyone knows the rioters aren't all that rational, they are just like lions, beasts. i do tend to be skeptical of his 'good citizen' acts like being a medic and such, as i think he was just telling himself he was being a super hero by doin all that. maybe i shouldn't second guess his motives on that point, but it's still clear by going to defend property and such, that he was lookin for trouble, and the 'messin with lions' analogy is completely accurate. 

Sounds like everyone's agreeing it was legally self defense. But what about moral culpability? He shouldn't have been there that night and was looking for trouble...  So he bears some moral responsibility. Its like if someone goes on a safari and messes wit the lions then has to shoot one. Yes it's self defense but ya shouldn't have been messin wit da lions to begin wit

"Why would Bill Maher, a Democrat, say something so hateful?"

cause he's a democrat... u answered your own question 

i dont make white music, i dont make black music... i make FIGHT music, for high school kids... i put lives at risk when i drive like this, i put wives at risk with a knife like this. 

my life's like, kinda what my wife's like... fucked up, after i beat her fuckin ass every night, ike. 

this pdf article discusses what it means to say there's evidence for the afterlife, and the irrationality of those who hold only a materialist world view

sadolite isn't the type to listen to reason. he thinks what he thinks, and you can't change any of it. 

is it better to tax the upper class, or let america go bankrupt? 

it looked like a bunch of non sequiters and so i thought you weren't really trying, but ok i'll respond. 

warren had a decent idea of a two percent tax of a wealthy person's wealth. at first i was against the idea, because a lot of rich people do good things with their money, and if we're taking from them, they can't do good. such as Gate's and bufett's philanthropy, or musk and bezo's space travel. but then i realized we can just make exceptions to the tax for stuff like that. 

imagine a country where a few people owned half the land, and half the country had none. how is that fair? i realize wealth is different than land, but it's all resources, so it's all the same idea. 

rich people usually dont pay much in income taxes, cause they haven't had taxable event on their capital. so that means they pay less taxes than ordinary people like you and me. that's another reason we need a modest wealth tax

i think she might be talking about reincarnation, cause the logic she's stating is usually applied to reincarnation 

we spend twenty four percent of our GDP on taxes. the average OECD country spends 33 percent. most think that means our taxes are low. not exactly. our healthcare system is 18 percent our GDP, and half of that is already from taxes, the rest from the private sector. so, given every other developed country has universal healthcare, if you added the private sector healthcare onto our taxes, we would be matching the rest of the developed world. so why can they afford to have more social services? 1. our healthcare costs twice as much as the rest of the developed world 2. our military is bigger than the next ten biggest countries combined 3. we've been borrowing against social security for decades, and now it's starting to become time to pay all that back. 

so if we did raise taxes on people, we might be getting more services, but we'd also be paying more than the rest of the world, all due to us having bad accounting. 

so it's accurate to say we pay less in taxes, but that misses the larger context. 

check out my last post. all the evidence i posted is verifiable and repeatable. it might not be sufficient evidence to change minds, but what evidence does exist is still repeatable. also i'm pretty sure dr. longs evidence in his book was published in a peer reviewed journal. i know there's a journal article about it.

it's irrational and idiotic to say there's no evidence for the afterlife. 

that link has a good description of NDEs. it tries to give skeptics too much credit though, but i guess the article is just trying to be fair. there are two examples of out of body experiences describing things out of the body, one was from the AWARE study and another was a personal anecdote from a doctor. (there are enough of these anecdotes to show a theme, though, it's repeatable and highly accurate, and there's no way to explain how these people know what happens out of their body when they are dead)

again, if it's commonplace for people to die and tell us they experienced the afterlife, the simplest solution is that that's what happened. if it was just a single person or maybe a few, we could say it's probably a hallucination. but that it's so widespread, philosphically it's just stupid to say people are consistently dying and hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories. even if a person doesn't think actual afterlife stories are being told as the simplest solution to what's happening, you'd have to ignore all the evidence, too, from 'evidence of the afterlife' to continue thinking hallucinations explain it all.  everything studied here is repeatable... it's basic science. 

that didn't really answer my last post. but it did point out that things that are moving age slower. and i think it said that moving objects appear to move slower to the observer than they are actually moving. so maybe we can say that the person moving at almost the speed of light must appear to be moving slower even though he's moving at around the speed of light. there's still a tension there that doesn't make sense, how can two things moving around the speed of light appear to be moving at different speeds? but maybe that tension is the point of it all. i dont know.. i'm not saying i found a flaw in einsten's work, i'm just pointing out that there aren't many good explanations out there.

i wouldn't be surprised if theunderdog were a russian operative, cause much of what he says it so outlandish. as if he's just trying to stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot, and given he says so much that's factually incorrect. that's what russians were found to be doing... spreading misinformation on social media and intentionally causing division. 

that link has yellen saying the spending bill will bring down inflation. i don't understand it though. how can spending more money bring down inflation? i guess if there's more people able to live their lives if they get assistance, maybe the labor shortage will lessen and the push upwards will lessen? this is too nebulous for me to understand. i dont see a clear argument that this bill will bring down inflation 

i understand that light is traveling at the speed of light for all reference frames... but given the person moving is also going at almost the speed of light, how can the observer note both him and the light going at different speeds given the person is also going at almost the speed of light? is the person appearing to move slower than he is, or is the light appearing to move faster than it is? id think it'd have to be one or the other. i guess since i accept that light is constant in all reference frames, that the person must appear to moving much slower than he is. but i dont understand how that's possible given the person moving is almost going at the speed of light. 

hypothetical. someone is traveling at almost the speed of light. they then turn on a flash light. i understand that how all observers to this will see the light move at a constant, the speed of light. that's based on relativity and frames of reference. 

what i dont understand, if an observer sees someone almost going at the speed of light, wouldn't the light have to appear to be going faster than light speed given the person moving and the light being emitted are in fact moving at different speeds? 

is it possible to appear to be moving at faster than light speed even if that's not in fact true? 

trump's tax cuts were about 2 trillion, and he didnt even pretend they were being paid for with spending cuts. the democrats' plan as it sits now i heard, is also at around two trillion. but at least they're making an effort to pay for it. i was gettin close to ditching the reckless democrats given they aren't taking the deficit seriously first, but the republicans are still worse. seems the only common ground people can find in this country is to borrow more money. sad. 

the only rational approach is to prioritize the estate tax over income tax. you could make the offer of lowering income taxes and increasing estate, and people would still give incoherent reasons to be against that. of course it's better to tax money after you die than money while you are living. and given that unreasonable knee jerk reaction, it will always in the current climate be unfeasible to pass the estate tax, cause peeps will just call it a death tax and you will get attacked for even suggesting it.