Tiberius Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: To solicit donations to their Foundation and Global Initiative? But Clinton? Ya, you are a thinker....not!
row_33 Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 I hope the FBI has stopped being a willing tool for the merely political enemies of The Donald by now
LA Grant Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 7 hours ago, Boyst62 said: In your own words, why? What does this mean? How will it bring down Trump so you may cum your britches? Occam's razor. He is what he is. The situation is exactly what it appears to be.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 15 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Occam's razor. He is what he is. The situation is exactly what it appears to be. Yes. Because there's no history of dishonesty, narrative engineering, or outright partisan manipulation through the media.
boyst Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 51 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Occam's razor. He is what he is. The situation is exactly what it appears to be. You're beyond a fraud, liar, hypocrite, racist and all. You're just lazy.
LA Grant Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 32 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Yes. Because there's no history of dishonesty, narrative engineering, or outright partisan manipulation through the media. Oh, there certainly is, you just have your head screwed on backwards. You still can't/won't defend your Federalist link, genius.
boyst Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Oh, there certainly is, you just have your head screwed on backwards. You still can't/won't defend your Federalist link, genius. Because one size is bad and the other side is bad doesn't mean one side is worse. A backwards head or not. You defend a side that is terrible and shown no honesty of recent and egregious errors toward what this country based
LA Grant Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, Boyst62 said: You're beyond a fraud, liar, hypocrite, racist and all. You're just lazy. Remember when you posted that "CNN article" that was completely made up? "What will Grant & Gary say to this?" you crowed. Then when it was pointed out that the article didn't actually exist, that in fact the links took you to an article about cooking asparagus & a dating site, you pretended not to have meant it in the first place? That was cool. 1
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 59 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Occam's razor. He is what he is. The situation is exactly what it appears to be. That's not Occam's Razor. 1
LA Grant Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, Boyst62 said: Because one size is bad and the other side is bad doesn't mean one side is worse. A backwards head or not. You defend a side that is terrible and shown no honesty of recent and egregious errors toward what this country based Right, "both sides" are equally wrong. The Nazis and the Jews, both sides were wrong. "Auschwitz is a death camp" headline & "Hitler brings new jobs to Germany" headline would both be valid to you, I'm sure.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Oh, there certainly is... So you acknowledge it - then ignore it and blindly swallow what you're told because it fits your partisanship. Do you attribute that to laziness or the fact you have a one cylinder engine atop those shoulders of yours?
LA Grant Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: That's not Occam's Razor. The explanation with fewer assumptions is the more likely one. How is that not Occam's razor, Sir Thomas? Are you struggling with definitions again, or do you care to explain?
Joe Miner Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: That's not Occam's Razor. The debate on Occam's Razor has been settled for years!
LA Grant Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: So you acknowledge it - then ignore it and blindly swallow what you're told because it fits your partisanship. Do you attribute that to laziness or the fact you have a one cylinder engine atop those shoulders of yours? Again. You're describing yourself. I wish there were a mirror for brains. Federalist link. You posted it. I presented skepticism w/supporting evidence. You refuse to defend it, ignoring the skepticism, blindly swallowing it because it fits your partisan conspiracy theory. Defend it.
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, LA Grant said: The explanation with fewer assumptions is the more likely one. How is that not Occam's razor, Sir Thomas? Are you struggling with definitions again, or do you care to explain? It's not Occam's Razor through virtue of not being Occam's Razor. When you search for the definition of a term, go past the first sentence that Google scrapes from Wikipedia. Edited March 8, 2018 by DC Tom 1
3rdnlng Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Again. You're describing yourself. I wish there were a mirror for brains. Federalist link. You posted it. I presented skepticism w/supporting evidence. You refuse to defend it, ignoring the skepticism, blindly swallowing it because it fits your partisan conspiracy theory. Defend it. Would you actually expect to see some if you looked in the mirror?
LA Grant Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: It's not Occam's Razor through virtoe of not being Occam's Razor. When you search for the definition of a term, go past the first sentence that Google scrapes from Wikipedia. lol, christ almighty, I don't know where to begin with you. If I write out the full explanation for why citing Occam's razor to Boyst's question of the NYT article is valid, then I'll have written paragraphs you won't read or respond to. The principle of Lucy's Football. If you want to go into the weeds of debating philosophy abstractly, that might be fun, but it should be a separate thread.
Warren Zevon Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Would you actually expect to see some if you looked in the mirror? is that a selfie?
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 Just now, LA Grant said: lol, christ almighty, I don't know where to begin with you. If I write out the full explanation for why citing Occam's razor to Boyst's question of the NYT article is valid, then I'll have written paragraphs you won't read or respond to. The principle of Lucy's Football. If you want to go into the weeds of debating philosophy abstractly, that might be fun, but it should be a separate thread. Writing pages on an explanation Occam's Razor would conclusively demonstrate you don't know what the !@#$ you're talking about, as it would violate Occam's Razor. 6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Would you actually expect to see some if you looked in the mirror? https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0404077 1
LA Grant Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Writing pages on an explanation Occam's Razor would conclusively demonstrate you don't know what the !@#$ you're talking about, as it would violate Occam's Razor. Hahaha, no, that's not right. Another one of your false equivalencies at play. I'm afraid you don't know what !@#$ you're talking about. 1
Recommended Posts