magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6hr ago
The second part is about the smuggling and espionage aspect, where the implications, if true, would be much worse, an actual criminal offense, than merely a consenting couple having sex (albeit involving the CEO of the largest publicly traded company in the world), yet the lax reaction by Washington is weird.
You're misinterpreting this as a "lax reaction by Washington". What it is is more correctly a "lax reaction by Donald Trump"; Congress is investigating. Donald Trump is probably relying on his "corruption isn't that bad" and "(almost) never back down" heuristics, presumably due to still not fully grokking the government world and/or early-stage dementia. As I said in the previous subthread, this could well get Trump impeached and convicted.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7hr ago
What does it mean obviously and no point?
are we supposed to decide what is true and worthy to pursue by obviousness and having point?
Can I say that Cartersia Demon obviously exists and thus there is no point having discussion, ending in some post-modern nihilism?
Essentially, if a Cartesian Daemon is messing with your mind, contemplation (individually or in groups via discussion) can produce arbitrary answers with no relation to what is true (a Daemon that wants to ensure you conclude X, or wants to prevent you concluding Y, can definitely do so by messing with your cognition).
So, let's break this down into cases.
Case 1: Cartesian Daemon. Discussion intended to achieve truths (which philosophical discussion - philosophical meaning "loving of wisdom" - is) will fail, so we might as well not do it.
Case 2: No Cartesian Daemon. Discussion might achieve things, but since there's no Cartesian Daemon we don't need to discuss that particular possibility.
Morton's Fork: both Case 1 and Case 2 imply that discussing Cartesian-Daemon scenarios is pointless, so since one of them's true this is true unconditionally.
I assumed (apparently falsely) that this proof was sufficiently "obvious" that you would immediately grasp it and thus I didn't need to belabour the point by stating it.
As for having point, um, yes, we should choose courses of action based on whether they achieve our goals? If you want X, and Y will achieve X, you want Y.
Whatever it is, it is your presupposition even in this naive and unexamined form.
Okay, look. There's this pattern I've seen you fall into with others, and you're falling into it now.
- Your interlocutor says X.
- You respond to your interlocutor as though he's saying Y, presumably because English isn't your first language and you honestly misinterpreted him.
- Your interlocutor responds that he's not saying Y, and is in fact saying X.
- You insist that your interlocutor is saying Y, and sometimes insult him (as I just quoted).
Steps 1-3 are fine. English not being your first language isn't your fault, so I can certainly make allowance for some degree of misinterpretation. But step 4 is not fine. That you occasionally misinterpret me isn't my fault either, insisting that I'm saying things I'm not saying is not productive, and insulting me is not justified. You need to understand that you are frequently misinterpreting others, and that the proper response to this is to ask for clarification rather than insulting us.
Sure, I can present it here in this context as there are more transcendental arguments for God, including Kantian one. I mean it in this sense.
Okay, thanks. Do you believe these premises? Premise 2 appears very obviously to be an error by Kant, due partially to his life being before the theory of natural selection was created by Wallace and Darwin and thus a materialistic explanation of 3/4 of those was devised, and partially due to privileging the Christian hypothesis over e.g. deism simply because there are more Christians than deists.
Jensen Huang was also an important Trump advisor, hence possible bad advice and/or passing on stuff Trump told him. And, yeah, chip smuggling.
More correctly, you (and I) have not yet seen any solid evidence that Jensen Huang was knowingly doing the bidding of the CPC. (I do not believe we've seen evidence that he wasn't, either - the guy did spend years aggressively lobbying to sell chips to China, and interfered with a government investigation into a Chinese spy.)
I will also note that QF said that Huang might go down in history as the worst traitor since the Rosenbergs, which acknowledges that the Rosenbergs were worse (and that he might not be considered such a traitor, if for instance he was merely duped).
More options
Context Copy link