If only if it was a war, then this would've been solved two decades ago with unlimited budget.

Subsidizing industry is pretty common. — Tate

Not profitable industry. That's not a subsidy anymore.

That’s pretty cool.

So you see all of this as inevitable? Better to just get away from it?

I hope you’re wrong, if that’s the case. — Xtrix

Unfortunately yes. I see no awareness with most people in power. Still fucking around with more immediate crises, which will always pop up. While Sunak wants to tackle inflation again and Biden is writing a cheque for 50 billion the world is burning.

And China along with Europe will most definitely overtake the US in the green tech revolution since the US is incapable of getting it's act together on just about anything. — Mr Bee

I wouldn't underestimate the ability of the USA to become a frontrunner because a lot of people do see the problem. Just because politics is filled with dinosaurs, doesn't mean the citizenry is.

Would a clone refer to its original as "father"? Possibly. Would we consider some kind of continuation of personhood as well between a clone and its original? Probably. So obviously we were created by all powerful aliens in their image where only Jesus was a clone. Problem solved.

I kind of love your optimism even during the election cycle when I saw no reason to be optimistic about Biden.

I bought this in the meantime:



And looking into building this in France:

So how is everyone feeling about the biggest transfer is wealth from regular people to profitable companies who made enough profits last year to match that transfer but instead spent most of it to buy back shares? Why the fuck is the US government considering gifting the semi conductor industry 50 billion?

The issue of our time will be biodiversity collapse. We can adapt to global warming and rising water levels even if it would destroy countries but not us as a race. Biodiversity collapse will potentially wipe us from the earth as well.

That's because there is no paradox to solve. You're just equivocating "apple" with "1". Just stop doing that.

I can add a pear and a twig and get to two.

Falsifiability isn't about experiments but about observations and it only needs to be falsifiable in principle to qualify as a falsifiable hypothesis.

The only prediction climate scientists have made is extreme weather, — Agent Smith

This is simply wrong.

Google is your friend. I'm here for discussion not to educate you on things that can easily be found online.

Oh! And where are the experiments? — Agent Smith

That's not a requirement. We know stars go supernova and haven't tested that under laboratory conditions. Maybe Chalmers' "What is this thing called science?" is a good read for you.

The only prediction I'm aware of that climate change makes is extreme weather and, as far as I can tell, that's too vague; almost as if they had an astronomer astrologer on the team. Edify me/us please! — Agent Smith

This is lazy and the same reason I didn't answer the other question.

This is the same question you asked with respect to the theory of evolution yesterday. Are you not aware of falsefiable predictions or do you think there aren't any?

Why is a ratified treaty outside of your tradition? That requires representatives of the people to agree to it. Seems rather relevant...

Anyway, I'm not arguing this specific case, just pointing out literal interpretations don't exist and that literal and originalist interpretation are not suitable. These are aberrations resulting from tradition but have little to do with logical rigour and even less with justice and fairness.

The point about the article is quite clearly that a literal interpretation doesn't exist and any reading of it needs to be backed up with additional interpretative techniques. Especially a law that is quite clearly silent on the case both in language as in its historical context of its lawgivers requires more. The intent of the lawgivers becomes meaningless but the teleology of a constitution, which we hope is a living document rather than ancient letters, and a systematic interpretation of all laws could support a decent interpretation. The US has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, which would've made an excellent basis for broadening the scope and context for intepretation of the constitution but instead it looks at... checks notes... 1866 when the 14th Amendment was passed instead of 1980. This is again wilful stupidity at best but as we all know what it really is: conservative mendacity and bad legal reasoning.

I dunno. Good question though! — Agent Smith

Is it that you aren't aware of it making predictions or that you think there aren't any?

Let me help you with one: it does not predict consistent behaviour of natural life.

What are the predictive claims of evolutionary theory?

Is the Theory of Evolution, in some way, falsifiable? — Agent Smith

Yes. And the rest of your post is irrelevant to this question.

It's always fun talking to you when you pretend to be dense. Here's a good article for starters:

https://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2006-the-a-contrario-argument-a-scorekeeping-model-2/

Alright, so if in 1972, we were to sit 100 US lawyers in a room and asked them to read the Texas abortion law and then to read the text of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, how many do you believe would announce the state has no compelling interest in regulating an abortion within the first trimester? Pretty small number don't you think?

Would you think that those who didn't find that right to be idiots without half a brain? — Hanover

Yes. They're idiots. The only reason this isn't obvious to you is because after 200 years of "golden rule" you don't know any better. It's unfortunate and is a source for injustice. Glad I don't live there.

This is ahistorical piffle actually. The golden rule is younger than the US constitution and constitutions, and statutory laws for that matter, were much more a continental thing at the time - so if you want to go into what they intended then it's not anticipating on idiotic restrictions on interpretations. Montesquieu and Locke were important influences. Maybe read the "spirit of laws" of the former.

The golden rule is a bastardisation of interpretative techniques available to people with half a brain. It's just wilful stupidity.

I love long walks, my cat and grand piano. I think I can manage loving a perfect facsimile of a person.

That's not a paradox, that's confusing basic algebraic functions with a tautological axiom.

Why does a US-centric interpretation not surprise me?

Like all stories, multiple interpretations are possible but I think I agree, by and large, with that interpretation. Trump didn't win but for all the conditions making it possible for him to win. From the economic situation, political corruption, campaigning decisions by the DNC, socio-cultural history, demographics, gerrymandering up to that truck not crushing him like an ant 10 years ago.

I interpreted his post to refer to morality. Legal penalties are whatever the law says are the penalties. In that view, the executions were perfectly fine because in accordance with the law (presumably).

Maybe this is for you: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/modules/hi2e1/syllabus/annales_crouzet_ppt.pptx&ved=2ahUKEwiuoMuWh-b4AhUGVvEDHfENBVkQFnoECBMQBg&usg=AOvVaw3840tJF3qVm4doi86PW-cH

That's a presentation about the Annales approach to history, also known as histoire totale.

Did you know Dostoyevski's Crime & Punishment and Tolstoy's War & Peace is a discussion around this exact point? These books were published in parts in a literary magazine (if that story is true, I heard if from someone else).

OK, so I voted guilty, understanding it as a moral injustice as opposed to a legal injustice. It could still be a legal execution if all the proper rules were followed - I don't have the time to really figure that out but isn't relevant to the point I'm making.

Well, you are arguing a case and claim they stand accused, but accused of what? I can find SA guilty of a lot of things but I think it's important we talk about the same thing, no?

So it blocks voting because I like to know what I'm voting for.

Guilty of what?

Here's the variation on a theme: anybody disagreeing with you is under duress!

How often do people have to disagree with you that it's going to dawn on you reasonable people can disagree without them being liars, propagandists or not at liberty to speak? You can rest assured you're more often wrong than right since whatever you know is but a tiny fraction of all the possible knowledge out there.

Every single time.

Or maybe don't have such a US-centric view of the world. The suggestion self-sufficiency expertise isn't available in rural France (of all places) is rather funny.

It's absolutely weird how you actually believe that.

The people you've called liars in this thread, actually didn't lie. So yes, you've insulted plenty of people as a result - I even demonstrated the mechanism at one point. Except they have thicker skin and don't whine about it. I'll also remind you that I engaged you in good faith twice on this page, the first time you raise a strawman, the second time you pretend my reply is a non-answer when it clearly isn't, since ssu understood it before. You even feel the need to sneak in a suggestion about some kind of defect to my character. So, well done. Enjoy the illusion of the higher ground.

Lol. I will never in a million years move to the US, the source of too many problems in modern times with one of the most corrupt governments to curse the western world.

At least pollution will be manageable where we're looking, so that will do just fine. Nuclear war, well, no use planning for that any way.

I'm not hopeful at all for society at large. I'm hopeful I can mitigate the fall out for my family.

Sure buddy. Coming from the guy who calls anyone who doesn't agree with him a liar and when he gets an answer to his question is disigenuous by pretending it's not an answer. You're incapable of approaching your interlocuters charitably as this thread is a fine example of.