-
Posts
13704 -
Joined
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Huckleberry
-
-
So is there any danger that A&M message boards are figuring out that the early CB picks their moderators put in on every State of Texas recruit with a pulse mean jack shit and are just intended to let them pump out bullshit stories about how the next class looks like it will be great for them?
-
Actually, looking at it a bit more, their baseball program is pretty clearly their best program in sports people care about. Pretty consistently go to Omaha about twice per decade.
And unlike certain conference mates of theirs, they actually win games there sometimes.
-
They had a good baseball run in the 1980s. Maybe he's talking about that.
-
Naming generations is fucking stupid and always has been. Then everyone acts like it's their team in the generation wars, which is entirely created by the stupidity of naming them in the first place.
The entire conversation is dumb.
-
4
-
-
But C5 is a softer/faster compound than any they'll have at the actual Spanish Grand Prix. Will probably all end up a wash but I do expect them to be slower to start with. You're probably right that they'll get to the same speed or faster by the end of the season, though.
-
21 hours ago, satyanash said:
"OT Tommy Brockermeyer looks very good out here. Probably not coming to A&M, as his dad played for Texas, but still a good player overall." -- Damon Sayles
Holy shit, this guy just basically admitted that how much a recruit likes A&M affects how he rates that recruit as a prospect.
-
2 hours ago, HenryJames said:
7 x (.59) = 4.13 @Huckleberry
Sonofabitch
-
Did you get my PM about the WBA?I just ran too many laps at Albert Park in F1 2018. I forgot how addicting the game can be. -
We're talking about Larry Scott. He'll just have 6 of his teams play a "non- conference game" against each other.Huck, you ignorant slut.
Despite the names, there are two more teams in the Pac-12 than the Big 12. Do you think those two teams are just going to sit at home and not play each week?
Or FCS teams which will limit the number of systems that can rate the two conferences (and realistically make it impossible for any to rate them accurately). -
Meh, that's exactly what he wants. He's a weak-willed pussy with a victim complex.Fuck off. We'll just crowdban your sorry ass, too. -
“You crash somebody’s door down and shoot their dog in Texas, you damn well better be prepared to get shot back at,” Prats said.
This guy gets it. Fuck no-knock raids. -
This is huge.
That's what your mom said to me last night. (Did I do that right?)-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:The antidote is...anti-illegals...and making fun of and belittling...identity politics.
You're still a complete moron.
Note that my editing and ellipses did not change the meaning of your post, they were done merely to point out this single specific instance of your mind-numbing hypocrisy by filtering out some of your usual verbal diarrhea.
-
I don't think it is possible that there was ever true nothingness.
If that's the case then no creator (or selector) is necessary. -
25 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:
jordan and meadows decide they want to REALLY go after cohen:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics/house-criminal-referral-michael-cohen/index.html
is this REALLY what they want to try to catch him out on? these are the guys who were bemoaning the committee hearing being a waste of time, but here they want to spend resources and time on catching cohen out on whether or not he wanted a white house position?
jesus herbert christ
There is no contradiction in the text of this story. It says that yesterday Cohen said he didn't want a job in the White House. But it says in earlier testimony that Cohen expected he would have a job in the White House.
I expect lots of things to happen in my life that I don't want to happen.
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:
You think the definition of random event necessarily entails a violation of the principle of sufficient reason? I disagree. The word seldom means that in common usage.; it often simply means a selection done by some impartial evenly distributed physical process and not by conscious decision, which is how I used it. Roulette wheels select numbers at random, but there is some mechanism behind them that determines what number gets selected and they do not violate the PSR. In fact, every such random event has a process behind it. You say that I am "redefining it to require method," but that is how all random selections work. The premises are just an acknowledgement of this fact. As I mentioned on the last post, provide an example of a random event that violates PSR and has no process or mechanism behind it.
It's a lot more simple than that. I think the principle of sufficient reason is bunk.
-
13 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:
There is also the possibility that there is no fallacy, but that you object to some of the definitions and premises. That is a perfectly valid form of objection and I think the source of disagreement in this case. You aren’t even certain of which fallacy you think it commits, so there is really no point in throwing some out there as a rebuttal. Also, the way you phrased my argument is not an accurate summary. It would be better to word it “reality was born either from something that made a choice or else it randomly happened, but randomness requires some process that guides it.”
What I think is the primary point of disagreement is that you and sidis believe that a random selection implies that there is no reason for the selection. In other words, a random action, selection, entity, etc, is one that occurs for no reason whatsoever. It just simply happens. Is this correct? If so, can you give any counter examples of selections or things which occur for no reason and/or without mechanisms determing what occurs?
Well yes, we believe that random selection implies randomness. That's the definition of the word (and why I mentioned equivocation fallacy of which the redefinition fallacy is a subset - but you can call it definist fallacy, persuasive definition, or whatever because in the end the name doesn't matter). The definition of random is that it happens without method or choice. You are redefining it to require method or choice.
-
52 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:
There is a big difference between a conclusion following from a set of premises vs being included in the premises. Begging the question occurs when a statement A is in one of the premises and then pops back out in the conclusion. If I were to write it symbolically, no such thing would occur. I don't see how one can claim that "All selection from equal or symmetrical options within a category requires either a choice or a selection mechanism which selects via some set of properties it uses to sort" is an equivalent claim to "Thus, the origin or source of reality must be capable of choice." I think you disagree with the view on randomness, but the rejection of a premise is a different thing than a begging the question fallacy.
To be fair I initially said begs the question "in a way" for a reason. You are trying to develop a proof that the origin or basis of reality must be capable of choice. To do so you have essentially defined randomness to be a selection/choice. It's basically saying that "reality was born either from something that made a choice or else it randomly happened, but randomness is also a selection/choice, therefore reality is created by something that can choose."
If it's not begging the question then it's awfully close, hence my initial phrasing. I suppose it's also sort of an equivocation fallacy, but I'm not an expert on technical logical fallacies by any stretch.
-
3 minutes ago, happyfunball said:
Did they discover any info to impeach the president or is this just 28 pages of people jerking each other off about Trump being an idiot criminal?
You seem genuinely interested in the testimony. Excellent jump-in and an excellent question.
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, Js1 said:
No thank you the Slack 12 will drag down our SOS and we’ll both get left out of the CFP
Actually, Strength of Schedule would be impossible to calculate because computer ratings could no longer be performed. The Pac-12 and Big 12 would be intentionally disconnecting themselves from the FBS schedule graph and turning themselves into an unconnected subset of teams.
-
2
-
-
This thread is going to hit 1,000 pages by NSD1. I'd bet maninblack's avatar on it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Crystal Methodist, obv.
-
4
-
-
4 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:
I don't believe that is the case with this argument. Any metaphysical view based on true choice entails a rejection of fatalism. The reason for this is that the summation of outcomes is dependent upon choices and choices are not metaphysically necessary. For example, according to the argument our would was dependent upon a choice and could have not been exemplified; thus it does not exist by necessity according to this view.
Randomness is simply meant as some selection with no intent or choice involved. But all selections of possibilities require some sort of selecting mechanism. For example, suppose we wanted to select a random real number from the set of all reals. We could write a program to do so, but there is simply no way for it to "randomly" select a number without some selection process. We could give it an algorithm to go by or tell it to select along some sequence of numbers of given properties (primes, for example), but there must be some selection process in place for it to follow, even for what we call random selections. Everything in our would, even the things that appear random, has some selection process or mechanism behind it. Premise 3 is merely a statement of this fact. If we were to write the premise as it applies to the real number selection, we could word it as follows:
The selection from symmetrical options within a category (e.g. any real within the set of all reals) requires either a choice (e.g. someone can just pick a number) or a selection mechanism (some program with rules to follow in order to make a selection).
Like I said, begging the question. You are assuming the existence of a selector in your proof of why there must be a selector. Randomness does not require a selector. I understand that you are saying it does as a premise, and that is why I'm saying the proof fails.
-
13 minutes ago, sidis said:premise 2...why can it not occur randomly instead of being chosen (regardless of intent or not)? you are creating a premise that requires a choice and then saying the choice can be chosen randomly or it can be chosen with intent...but then saying that's irrelevant because regardless, a choice is made so something had to drive the decision whether it was made at random or with intent. then you jump from there to origin has to be a result of a choice when a slight adjustment to premise 2 allowing for R to be to also be a random outcome without a choice undermines everything after definition 3. ultimately, you're just saying that choosing something with intent or not is still a choice. how is this helpful?
Yeah, skimmed at a red light but seemed at first glance like Premise 3 begged the question. In Premise 2 randomness is possible and then in Premise 3 it's not.
Next red light and I see that Premise 2 also misrepresents randomness, or rather begs the question in a way by stating randomness must be the result of a selection mechanism. This non-required mechanism inserted by the proof's author eventually becomes the basis of the conclusion.
Boomers v. Millenials (and hey, did you know there's a Gen X too?)
in Cloak Room
Posted
Let's take this as an example of why generation arguments are dumb.
Who had more access to reliable birth control and a higher family income, a Baby Boomer black female born to one of the remaining sharecroppers in 1949 or a Silent Generation white male born to college graduates in 1932 New York City?
What generation you're a part of is essentially useless compared to the other demographic information I just gave you about these two hypothetical people. Differences within generations are way more important than differences between generations. That's not to say there is no important information to consider based on year of birth, only that it is tremendously overstated and given way too much attention in popular culture.