you care too much about what is said. Until republicans increase oversight or impeach him or generally just do something instead of just making shit up that plays well with their base, then it's just air.

My, my. Temer temper. — raza

Just calling it as it is. It's refreshing. Also, learn to spell.

For those of you implying some deficiency in morals and/or knowledge of those who disagree with your view that the US should take on the role of protector against Russian aggression, do YOU have a problem with your country receiving money and other benefits from such an unjust and immoral country as the United States? Is that really who you want as an ally? Or could you "not care less" how these funds have been acquired and how the US behaves towards other (esp non-European) nations? Seems extremely hypocritical tbh to call out Americans for ignorance or a lack of concern while looking the other way when it benefits you to do so. — Erik

There's plenty of criticism levelled by the Dutch press on Dutch issues or European issues. In the USA you have bipartisan cheerleaders masquerading as news outlets dominating the news. The level of distrust is incomparable. I can cite any Dutch newspaper in the Netherlands or refer any news program for facts and whether the person is a communist or a right-wing xenophobe, he'll accept those facts. If I cite the NYT to Republicans, half of the time I have to find corroborating evidence before we can talk about what those facts mean. It's sad really that there's apparently such a dissonance within the population.

So certainly, I also take issue with the USA's foreign policy and definitely have an opinion about a lot of its domestic issues. You're welcome to take issue with the Netherlands as well. In practice nobody cares about the Netherlands because it's not in the same position as the USA, which is still a superpower and a potential elephant in the chinashop.

Do we want the US to be an ally? Of course, if only because it beats having it as an enemy. The same is true for China and Russia for that matter, which have horrible human rights records domestically where the USA reserves that for refugee children. The USA though, pretends to be a democracy based on the rule of law so I do hold it at a higher standard than despotic regimes. And morality does come into play when money is better represented than people and it's clear as daylight. The Netherlands shows tendencies to develop the same problem the US has in that respect. As does Europe as a whole. We kind of benefit from being a fragmented cooperation of different States here as it makes it much harder to influence every country at once.

I also believe the US should not take the role of protector against Russian aggression (or any type of aggression for that matter). In fact, I think it should do far less and when it does act, to do so for the right reasons and based on actual evidence (Iraq anyone?). What is a problem, I think, is having Trump fawn over Putin and downplaying the rather serious implications of Russian meddling in the US elections (and other Western countries including the Netherlands). You'd expect we have common ground to work together to combat these cyber attacks but you wouldn't be able to tell based on Trump's performance at NATO, in the UK and today again in Helsinki.

I don't think the two things are incompatible; in fact that seems the most reasonable position to take at the moment: Russia may represent a genuine danger for us and our allies and yet we may need to prioritize our very serious domestic issues for the time being, and part of that may involve scaling back the empire. — Erik

I agree but perhaps my paragraph wasn't as clear as I thought it was. :up:

This sort of American exceptionalism - I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) this is the angle you'll take - is pushed by neocons (ooh!) and others in order to justify continued American global dominance. All the while our own country languishes with massive discrepancies in wealth, in access to quality education, in healthcare, in racial and cultural divisiveness, in a pervasive cynicism regarding politics, etc. — Erik

I think the assumption is erroneous. There's a differences between disparaging and alienating allies and deluding yourself Russia is benign on the one hand and the issues resulting from the military - industrial complex, a political system hostage to two malt identical parties and other social ills on the other. So, you can not care about international relations up to a point but being chummy with the guy that probably orchestrated a lot of influence on the last USA election is not not caring, it's wilful ignorance at best and bad faith at worst.

I don't have some adolescent expectation of agreement. I think your avatar is very suitable, discriptive imagery, by the way. — raza

I don't expect agreement you tin-foiled shill. I expect arguments and evidence.

Nearly all of Hillary Clinton's emails on her homebrew server went to a foreign entity that isn't Russia. — raza

The DNC servers were hacked.

you're bloviating without the ability to give details. Whether it's taxes or this. You're a terribly boring person to talk to since there's nothing after scratching the surface.

People, by nature have immoral tendency. Selfishness and immorality cannot be removed from human nature simply by defining "human nature" such that it includes morality. Actual morality requires effort from the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

My response was short hand for saying you can't tell where human nature ends and morality begins. It's a failed enterprise and rests on assumptions nobody needs to accept because they'll be based on persuasive definitions.

Even those two issues are debated by people. We understand the concepts and can talk about them due to a shared social environment but consciousness doesn't exist and you don't have a physical body.

feel free to answer my question first.

that isn't an answer. How does it show his immaturity? When admonishing my kid I sometimes have to talk like a kid to make her understand. That doesn't make me immature.

The second is that it will embolden support for Trump and blow back into the face of London’s mayor. — raza

How And why?

morality is part of human nature.

how do you know you're right on ethical, metaphysical or political issues? What is right in that context? Seems to me the best we can hope for is consistency.

Sure, it is a possibility, but a highly unlikely one given the context. He was not Hillary, so "We" cannot be Hillary. It must be a group that includes him. Granted that he worked for the FBI, AND they were working on a Trump investigation, the "we" most likely refers to the FBI. You are a lawyer. Do you deny that this is the most plausible explanation, especially given the animosity he displayed towards Trump coupled with his not so upstanding character? — Agustino

I'm not knowledgeable enough about the issue to make that call. I will say that given Trump wasn't elected president at the time, it is very plausible to me that by "we" he meant voters or the American people at large. I find that explanation more likely than a reference to the FBI.

As a lawyer from what I've seen and heard so far there is simply no evidence either way.

This medium doesn't lend itself well for persuasion. I've persuaded a lot of people face to face though, even to the point where I tilted their worldview. Admittedly, the older people get the less likely it becomes but instead you develop respect for differences of opinion and a thicker skin.

I don't think it's immaterial. — Agustino

What's material about the number of people he spoke to when the start of the investigation was already established? The number was immaterial and only latched on to perform the show.

I don't presume to know what someone meant exactly on the basis of ambiguous language in a medium that isn't used accurately. At that point in time it could've referred to Americans, or at least that portion that voted Democrat, e.g. meaning Hillary would stop him or the people voting for her. So since that's a plausible explanation and I assume some form of standard of proof is necessary, you don't really have anything to go on as you can't read minds.

So what you're demonstrating again is your personal bias by assuming his guilt.

You take that away. I see attempts by Goodlatte to badger him and his Democratic colleagues on a point that's really immaterial. He threatens him with contempt and criminal proceedings when he's not under subpoena, whereas Bannon who was under subpoena didn't have problems with not answering questions. It's a show. The fact you enjoy it only tells us what you already believe.

The US president has an independent voice and uses it. It's refreshing. — raza

Well, you're a dumbass that doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm just using my independent voice. It's refreshing.

That's a no-brainer. In 2015 trade with EU totalled £353,981,863,263, and trade with US totalled £80,568,126,775. — Michael

Not for the Boris Johnsons and Nigel Farages of this world.

How does that relate to what I said?

Trump visits England. Insults May. Praises Boris Johnson. Suggests the UK has to choose either the USA or EU in trade.

:rofl:

1. If R = heads then ...
2. If R = tails then ...

1 and 2 have contradictory antecedents. But I'm not saying that both the antecedent of 1 and the antecedent of 2 are true. One is true and one is false, with a 50% chance of each being true. And the same with my example with the envelopes:

1. If X = 10 then ...
2. If 2X = 10 then ... — Michael

Well, you're turning it around here. To illustrate with coins it would be something weird like:

If R = heads then
If 2R = heads then

The correct one is:

1. If X = 10 then ...
2. If X = 5 then ... — Michael

If X = 10 then the other is 20
If X = 5 then the other is 10

In both cases you have now assumed you're opening the smaller envelope and the other HAS to be the bigger envelope. Both outcomes are in principle possible as the total is indeed 3X.

Not complaining are we? — unenlightened

I'm special. I'm a holistic complainer and complain about EVERYBODY. It's only fair.

US politics devolved into repetitive tu quoque well before this. Everybody on the left complains about the right and vice versa and then both complain the other side complains about the other side complaining about the other's complaints. It's like watching children.

Meanwhile, the fact that the left maligns Kavanaugh isn't the fucking news. Are there good arguments against him becoming a member of SCOTUS or not. If not, why is the left wrong.

That's how you proposed it originally.

In the above you have an inherent contradiction in your conditionals as X and 2X are both 10. As a result and as you correctly state one of them is false by necessity. For probability both outcomes should be at least possible. Otherwise, one outcome carries the probability of 0% and the other 100%. That you don't know which one is true or false does not result in an equal probability.

Or, alternatively, we can take a cue from the European playbook and pursue a level of economic interdependence between Russia and Europe that it would be in both their interest to not start wars. It also doesn't tell us what alternatives would be since there aren't really any and as far as renewable energies go, Germany already invests quite a lot. Unlike the USA it doesn't have its own oil reserves and its industry is far more energy efficient than the USA already.

And by the same logic the US is even worse as it, despite producing 40% of its own needs (which it could ramp up), it imports oil and gas from terrorist countries and shouldn't they be guarding against that? 40% of imports is from OPEC and gulf countries and also 40% from the evil Canadians.

Funny, I was just thinking how inserting an amount just confuses things. 10 GBP is as much a meaningless placeholder as Y or A to denote the value of the envelope in that respect. Let's stick to what we know, we don't know the value of either envelope but we do know one is twice as much as the other. So one is X and the other is 2X for a total of 3X for both envelopes.

Let's name the envelopes Y and Z (note, they do not denote amounts). The expression "if Y = X then Z is 2X or X/2" only adds up to 3X in one instance, the rest results in false conclusions as it contradicts the premise that the total should always be 3X. Knowing that Y is either X or 2X, we get four possibilities:

If Y = X then Z = 2X for a total of 3X is true.
If Y = X then Z = X/2 for a total of 1.5X is false.
If Y = 2X then Z = 2X for a total of 4X is false.
If Y = 2X then Z = X/2 for a total of 2.5X is false.

This suggests that replacing the variable of one envelope with a fixed amount or a fixed placeholder messes up things. I'm not sure why. Maybe @andrewk can tell me.

Would you agree that your expression allows the envelopes to carry values of either X, 2X or X/2?

We wouldn't, because we've opened an envelope in this example. I know that there's £10 in my envelope. If from this we can deduce an expected value of £12.50 in the other envelope then once we switch we have no reason to switch back. — Michael

Fair enough. That earlier comment was a reply to the original OP so I suppose with this amendment it doesn't hold water any more (although I haven't worked through it so I'm just assuming you're right).

I recall an earlier discussion where another poster (a frequentist) said that once a coin had been tossed it would be wrong to say that it's equally likely to be heads as tails (even if we haven't looked); instead if it's actually heads then it's not possible that it's tails and if it's actually tails then it's not possible that it's heads. I believe Jeremiah and Srap (and perhaps you?) would take this same reasoning and say that if it's actually £5 in the other envelope then it's not possible that it's £20 and if it's actually £20 in the other envelope then it's not possible that it's £5. — Michael

No, I don't think I would agree with that either.

We're dealing with a situation where we know that there's £10 in our envelope. What's the value of the other envelope? It's possible that it's £5, as the envelope set could be £5 and £10, and it's possible that it's £20, as the envelope set could be £10 and £20. It's not possible that it's £1 as the envelope set can't be £1 and £10. — Michael

The total sum possible for both envelopes in the above assuming one envelope contains 10 GBP is either 3x = 30 or 3x = 15 but we know it's either one of the two, it cannot be both. Your expression however allows for both and therefore has to be wrong by necessity.

I also refer to my earlier comment that the above expression, if we allow for unlimited switching of envelopes, would entail having to switch indefinitely which is absurd.

If only the amount in the first envelope, the envelope you chose and perhaps are even allowed to open, is fixed, and the second envelope is then loaded with either half or twice the amount in yours, then switching is the correct strategy. This is the variant Barry Nalebuff calls the Ali Baba problem. — Srap Tasmaner

Well, uhmm... no...? The first envelope has an amount that is either X or 2X, the other is either X or 2X. The other is not half or twice the amount of X. The other envelope is only half iff the opened envelope contains 2X and it's only twice as much iff the opened envelope contains X.

Ok. I'll have a stab at that (I have to admit I only read the first few pages here so might be repeating things).

Ok, so we have a wrong approach:

If the envelope I'm holding is X then switching either gives you 2X or X/2. Either you win X or you lose 1/2X, so switching is a winning proposition.

One venue I'm thinking about is that this falsely suggests there are three possible values for the envelopes: X, 2X and X/2. But we know there are only two; X and 2X.

If the envelope I'm holding is X then switching gives me 2X but if it's 2X then switching gives me X. Profit and loss are equal.

The mistake could also be found in the assumption that the envelope I hold has a determinate amount X of which the values of the other envelope is derived.

ah... I'd opt for the reductio ad absurdum. If there's no limit to switching, you'd have to switch indefinitely based on the other faulty interpretation which is of course ridiculous.

I thought this was solved eons ago? The total amount of the envelopes is fixed; switching or keeping results in the same. The total amount is always 3x. The expected amount (E) in an envelope is therefore 50% x or 50% 2x, e.g. 3x/2. That's the expected amount any way you cut that cookie.

The article you linked to concerns DNA testing children separated from parents due to Trump's Zero Tolerance. There's a court order to reunite them within a certain period of time that will require DNA testing to make the deadline.

Then there's your comment with regard to how many unaccompanied children reach the US border. They seem to be separate issues and your "many" seemed to initially refer to unaccompanied children as that was the context to which you were replying.

that made me laugh. :rofl: thanks!

your a bunch of fukkin spellin & grammar nazies

Führer Müller even.