We seem to be getting closer:

[Moonbeam]

I'm sure moonbeam appreciates someone this dishonest chearleading for him. "Haha well said Moonbeam! Agent00f is just like the orange person he hates the most."

If I were arguing with Trump he would dismiss what I say as ignorance and counterattack endlessly. He would never give an inch even when confronted by his own stated logical inconsistencies. If Trump called somebody stupid for mentioning two points of view out of many possible and said that showed they were fools for not mentioning a third possibility, he would stick to that claim regardless of the fact that it is patently absurd. If he said that science is about the real world and not speculation, when science is in fact all about speculating about what is unknown about the real world, he would continue to imagine that what he said isn't factually absurd. He would deny and counterattack and bluster because he's used to winning by being a persistent asshole. So of course since I can't work orange into my analysis, I can see no resemblance at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

How does that make any sense in your head? It's a simple a matter of fact that you were cheerleadering then vehemently tried to deny it when it became inconvenient, followed by the predictably pathetic blustering expected of the conservatives here. That's just the empirical natural of things.

An alternative explanation is that when you view the world through your asshole the world looking shitty becomes the empirical nature of things.

 

[agent00f]

If I were arguing with Trump he would dismiss what I say as ignorance and counterattack endlessly. He would never give an inch even when confronted by his own stated logical inconsistencies. If Trump called somebody stupid for mentioning two points of view out of many possible and said that showed they were fools for not mentioning a third possibility, he would stick to that claim regardless of the fact that it is patently absurd. If he said that science is about the real world and not speculation, when science is in fact all about speculating about what is unknown about the real world, he would continue to imagine that what he said isn't factually absurd. He would deny and counterattack and bluster because he's used to winning by being a persistent asshole. So of course since I can't work orange into my analysis, I can see no resemblance at all.

For someone who whined so much about "superficially" you sure do love its company. Superior knowledge of the subject at hand is how rational arguments are won, and just because dumbshits often emulate those trappings has no bearing on that underlying reality. For example, the Einstein work mentioned was a result of effort to reconcile inconsistencies between maxwell equations and Galilean/traditional reference frames of motion, both very much empirical theories of what is resulting in another more generalized theory of what is and so on. Tarting up what's a rather technical circumstance with colorful language does not change the reality of that situation, and if anything it's easy to spot the similarities between the blustering here.

An alternative explanation is that when you view the world through your asshole the world looking shitty becomes the empirical nature of things.

People are often not as "good" as we've evolved to argue, most particularly ourselves.

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f: For someone who whined so much about "superficially" you sure do love its company. Superior knowledge of the subject at hand is how rational arguments are won, and just because dumbshits often emulate those trappings has no bearing on that underlying reality. For example, the Einstein work mentioned was a result of effort to reconcile inconsistencies between maxwell equations and Galilean/traditional reference frames of motion, both very much empirical theories of what is resulting in another more generalized theory of what is and so on. Tarting up what's a rather technical circumstance with colorful language does not change the reality of that situation, and if anything it's easy to spot the similarities between the blustering here.

M: Superior arguments about the subject at hand aren't needed when a pretentious fool like you makes preposterously illogical claims for their side of the issue.

a: People are often not as "good" as we've evolved to argue, most particularly ourselves.

M: I give a flying fig about arguing with you. I find your arrogant contempt and expressed disdain for people you consider inferior to be morally repulsive. You intend to hurt people and I think you succeed quite often at that. I know why you do that and you do not. And as you know, looking at conservatives, it easy to see that ignorance is dangerous. Just remember that I know and you do not and nothing you say, none of your silly intimidation will change that.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f: For someone who whined so much about "superficially" you sure do love its company. Superior knowledge of the subject at hand is how rational arguments are won, and just because dumbshits often emulate those trappings has no bearing on that underlying reality. For example, the Einstein work mentioned was a result of effort to reconcile inconsistencies between maxwell equations and Galilean/traditional reference frames of motion, both very much empirical theories of what is resulting in another more generalized theory of what is and so on. Tarting up what's a rather technical circumstance with colorful language does not change the reality of that situation, and if anything it's easy to spot the similarities between the blustering here.

M: Superior arguments about the subject at hand aren't needed when a pretentious fool like you makes preposterously illogical claims for their side of the issue.

Here's a tip for developing a coherent argument, which would be a first step towards a superior one: try to explain to the best of your ability how my claims are preposterously illogical.

a: People are often not as "good" as we've evolved to argue, most particularly ourselves.

M: I give a flying fig about arguing with you. I find your arrogant contempt and expressed disdain for people you consider inferior to be morally repulsive. You intend to hurt people and I think you succeed quite often at that. I know why you do that and you do not. And as you know, looking at conservatives, it easy to see that ignorance is dangerous. Just remember that I know and you do not and nothing you say, none of your silly intimidation will change that.

It's pretty obvious that I look to punish stupidity, given that the lack of clear immediate consequences is what promotes it. It also obviously works better than what you have been trying, or jesus for that matter (ie christian right).

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f: Here's a tip for developing a coherent argument, which would be a first step towards a superior one: try to explain to the best of your ability how my claims are preposterously illogical.

M: I don't think redoing what I have already done would help you to see your errors since you are clearly bent of avoiding that realization.

a: It's pretty obvious that I look to punish stupidity, given that the lack of clear immediate consequences is what promotes it. It also obviously works better than what you have been trying, or jesus for that matter (ie christian right).

M: I am quite amused that you have found such a simple answer to such a complex problem. Too bad your solution is devoid of emotional wisdom.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f: Here's a tip for developing a coherent argument, which would be a first step towards a superior one: try to explain to the best of your ability how my claims are preposterously illogical.

M: I don't think redoing what I have already done would help you to see your errors since you are clearly bent of avoiding that realization.

Not terribly convincing that arguments lacking much of relevant info are the better ones.

a: It's pretty obvious that I look to punish stupidity, given that the lack of clear immediate consequences is what promotes it. It also obviously works better than what you have been trying, or jesus for that matter (ie christian right).

M: I am quite amused that you have found such a simple answer to such a complex problem. Too bad your solution is devoid of emotional wisdom.

Complex solutions apply more to complex people rather than simple ones.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not terribly convincing that arguments lacking much of relevant info are the better ones.



Complex solutions apply more to complex people rather than simple ones.

Please say something where I can work orange in. I know you want to.

 

[disappoint]

M: I give a flying fig about arguing with you. I find your arrogant contempt and expressed disdain for people you consider inferior to be morally repulsive. You intend to hurt people and I think you succeed quite often at that. I know why you do that and you do not.

This is spot on. I think I know why he does it too. Because people hurt him, right? Now he wants to hurt people before they hurt him. It's no way to live man, it's no way to live. It's unhealthy.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is spot on. I think I know why he does it too. Because people hurt him, right? Now he wants to hurt people before they hurt him. It's no way to live man, it's no way to live. It's unhealthy.

We live in a very anti-intellectual culture, maybe one that could be described as macho tough cowboy routine where children where children of promise get a wackamole treatment everytime they express that gift. It is very common to see bitter smart people who use their intellects to belittle others given a shield like offered by the internet. They were made to feel inferior because they were smart and now they grow up to get even. To become what you hate, what hated you, what could be more unhealthy than that? Earlier in life it may have been the only way to defend oneself against being completely terrorized. The abused become abusers.

 

[agent00f]

This is spot on. I think I know why he does it too. Because people hurt him, right? Now he wants to hurt people before they hurt him. It's no way to live man, it's no way to live. It's unhealthy.

We live in a very anti-intellectual culture, maybe one that could be described as macho tough cowboy routine where children where children of promise get a wackamole treatment everytime they express that gift. It is very common to see bitter smart people who use their intellects to belittle others given a shield like offered by the internet. They were made to feel inferior because they were smart and now they grow up to get even. To become what you hate, what hated you, what could be more unhealthy than that? Earlier in life it may have been the only way to defend oneself against being completely terrorized. The abused become abusers.

First philosophy and now psychology departments better watch out for the new brain trust in town. How would you geniuses analyze people with a lifelong habit of knowing ~nothing about a subject yet feel qualified to bluster about it regardless? One of you two seem smart enough to introspect on what it feels like to be so conservative, I'll let you guys figure out which.

 

[disappoint]

The left is so unhinged they are starting to make the right look sane. Never thought I'd see the day that happens.

 

[alien42]

The left is so unhinged they are starting to make the right look sane. Never thought I'd see the day that happens.

sorry, but there is nothing sane about the right's treason.

 

[disappoint]

sorry, but there is nothing sane about the right's treason.

Of course not. but they have always been that way more or less. The left is starting to become like them and that is the worst betrayal.

This may be unpopular but there are more important things than popularity contests. The election results last election is the best thing that could have happened to this country. If Hillary had been elected the Democrats would have been rewarded for backing one of the most corrupt politicians I've ever seen on the Democratic ticket.

If you think one of the parties being corrupt is bad, what would you think of both being corrupt?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He must still be at it.

 

[alien42]

Of course not. but they have always been that way more or less. The left is starting to become like them and that is the worst betrayal.

This may be unpopular but there are more important things than popularity contests. The election results last election is the best thing that could have happened to this country. If Hillary had been elected the Democrats would have been rewarded for backing one of the most corrupt politicians I've ever seen on the Democratic ticket.

If you think one of the parties being corrupt is bad, what would you think of both being corrupt?

sorry, but the level of corruption in the current Republican party is far greater than the corruption in the Democratic party.

 

[agent00f]

The left is so unhinged they are starting to make the right look sane. Never thought I'd see the day that happens.

Of course not. but they have always been that way more or less. The left is starting to become like them and that is the worst betrayal.

This may be unpopular but there are more important things than popularity contests. The election results last election is the best thing that could have happened to this country. If Hillary had been elected the Democrats would have been rewarded for backing one of the most corrupt politicians I've ever seen on the Democratic ticket.

If you think one of the parties being corrupt is bad, what would you think of both being corrupt?

Just a heads up that parroting talking points written for tards doesn't do you any favors. At least hayabusa rider had the good sense to parrot material written by somewhat intelligent people.

What would you say was the traumatic part of childhood that led to this habit?

 

[disappoint]

sorry, but the level of corruption in the current Republican party is far greater than the corruption in the Democratic party.

Neither party deserves any votes considering how they have been behaving.

 

[woolfe9998]

He was just parroting pop sci material, ie wishful thinking, on the matter as mentioned. It's pretty obvious you don't know much of it either, and the way knowledge works two people who don't know what they're talking about doesn't add up to any meaningful sum, and this is a topic where facts matter. Interstellar travel isn't just absurdly difficult but also a complete shot in the dark given that in all 4 billion years of our planetary existence intelligence life has only occupied a negligible sliver. It's basically buying a quadrillion dollar lottery ticket with a questionable jackpot.

I have a question about the bolded remark. The first part about interstellar travel being "absurdly difficult" is beyond any real dispute. It's the "lottery" argument that interests me here. Not sure I understand you correctly, which could be due to poor wording on your part or poor comprehension on mine. When you say that interstellar travel is a "shot in the dark" because of the relatively brief existence of humanity, did you really mean to say that two sentient species linking up is a "shot in the dark?" If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that the existence of a sentient species covers such a tiny spec of time in the span of the universe that it's highly unlikely for two sentient species to exist at the same time, even if they could somehow surmount the vast travel distance?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Neither party deserves any votes considering how they have been behaving.

Unfortunately politics has become completely disfunctional. "They aren't as bad" isn't a glowing critique. I hope we can clean house. Cluster B? Seems like some of our leaders are subject to that as well as the locals here.

 

[agent00f]

I have a question about the bolded remark. The first part about interstellar travel being "absurdly difficult" is beyond any real dispute. It's the "lottery" argument that interests me here. Not sure I understand you correctly, which could be due to poor wording on your part or poor comprehension on mine. When you say that interstellar travel is a "shot in the dark" because of the relatively brief existence of humanity, did you really mean to say that two sentient species linking up is a "shot in the dark?" If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that the existence of a sentient species covers such a tiny spec of time in the span of the universe that it's highly unlikely for two sentient species to exist at the same time, even if they could somehow surmount the vast travel distance?

Yes. There's little reason to believe that intelligent species have particular longevity in the scheme of things; a few million years is a pretty good run all things considered. The chances of one civilization happening upon another they can meaningful talk to is (tiny-fraction * tiny-fraction), or ~zero.

Also, there's the question of what meeting any such peers even means should it happen. You're almost certainly not going back or even communicating back home given the distances. So who the hell back home is paying for such an expensive adventure?

There's every reason to believe any intelligent beings can work all this out and figure there are a LOT better things to spend their gazillions on.

Unfortunately politics has become completely disfunctional. "They aren't as bad" isn't a glowing critique. I hope we can clean house. Cluster B? Seems like some of our leaders are subject to that as well as the locals here.

Yeah, meeting complete degenerates halfway makes for half degeneracy, thus it's clearly the non-degenerates' fault according to the former.

 

[disappoint]

Unfortunately politics has become completely disfunctional. "They aren't as bad" isn't a glowing critique. I hope we can clean house. Cluster B? Seems like some of our leaders are subject to that as well as the locals here.

Yes. Unfortunately our society seems to reward the Cluster B types leading to the clusterfu...nctionality or rather disfunctionality as you correctly stated. One wonders if our leadership is under the impression they should be rewarded in order to "grow more" of them because they are the successful money maker types who fund their campaigns. By "grow more" I mean inspire others to take their path by fostering a system that rewards them instead of discouraging them.

 

[disappoint]

Just a heads up that parroting talking points written for tards doesn't do you any favors. At least hayabusa rider had the good sense to parrot material written by somewhat intelligent people.

What would you say was the traumatic part of childhood that led to this habit?

Did someone lose a sick puppy? It keeps following me around biting at my ankles.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes. There's little reason to believe that intelligent species have particular longevity in the scheme of things; a few million years is a pretty good run all things considered. The chances of one civilization happening upon another they can meaningful talk to is (tiny-fraction * tiny-fraction), or ~zero.

Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. And I totally agree. But there's one problem. This argument dovetails with, and supports, Hayabusa's "Great Filter" argument that you maligned above as being an ill-informed product of "pop sci fi." His was a different way of framing the argument. He framed it as: sentient species have a tendency to kill themselves off before they could find another sentient species, or be found by another sentient species. I would have added to his argument, "or die off from natural causes, such as the collision of celestial bodies, etc." Otherwise, it's basically the same argument you just made. If sentient species tend not to last terribly long, there must be reasons for this. Our own sun won't burn out for billions more years, but it seems unlikely we'll still be around when that happens. The reasons can only broadly be either extinction by natural cause or extinction by self-destruction. Pretty much what he argued except that he failed to mention natural causes.

So basically, you just derided his point, then supported it with your own argument. You would have been better off sticking with how interstellar travel is nigh impossible. Instead, you had to add another argument to show how smart you are, and in doing so, you unwittingly supported his point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. And I totally agree. But there's one problem. This argument dovetails with, and supports, Hayabusa's "Great Filter" argument that you maligned above as being an ill-informed product of "pop sci fi." His was a different way of framing the argument. He framed it as: sentient species have a tendency to kill themselves off before they could find another sentient species, or be found by another sentient species. I would have added to his argument, "or die off from natural causes, such as the collision of celestial bodies, etc." Otherwise, it's basically the same argument you just made. If sentient species tend not to last terribly long, there's must be reasons for this. Our own sun won't burn out for billions more years, but it seems unlikely we'll still be around when that happens. The reasons can only broadly be either extinction by natural cause or extinction by self-immolation. Pretty much what he argued except that he failed to mention natural causes.

So basically, you just derided his point, then supported it with your own argument. You would have been better off sticking with how interstellar travel is nigh impossible. Instead, you had to add another argument to show how smart you are, and in doing so, you unwittingly supported his point.

I didn't think my english was ambigiuous, in fact I know it wasn't. There could be many reasons and I merely explicitly mentioned two possibilites among many. Pretty much everyone got it, but some are developmentally incapable it seems. No matter, this thread isn't supposed to be about space and that subject has been discussed from Fermi's time on. I won't go into them because I shouldn't parrot somewhat smart people like Fermi and John von Neumann

Perhaps our expert should call the idiot Stephen Hawking and set him right about this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hip-to-alpha-centauri/?utm_term=.d5c96b4c137e

Well at least I'm hard to find in the real world so creepers are restricted to Minecraft.