-
Posts
14360 -
Joined
-
Days Won
22
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
-
-
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.
-
1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:
I once attended a CLE taught by a stand-up comic who claimed scientific research proved you could be a high-functioning human being with only a brain stem and fluid in your head. Weirdest 8 hours of my life.
Turns out he's right, dude.

-
6
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:
So gold stars go to :
1. AOC for the Blue Team.
2. Amash for the Red Team (default win).
Thought Representative Khanna did a pretty decent job, too, in terms of staying focused and attacking an angle. The worst parts of all of these are the people who act emotional and just go for theatrics. I know they work with the bases but if you're appealing to brain stems during a Congressional hearing then fuck you.
-
6 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:WTF???? This is a U.S. congressman, right? Tell me this is the Onion or some other satirical site.
-
2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:
What's the point of putting in a CB for "Cloudy?" Or "Undecided?"
I think it means they used to have a pick for a specific school but they removed that pick. It doesn't change their CB for that player to empty/blank, cloudy is what it says.
-
You should say what you mean. I didn't twist your words in any way, I simply quoted them, and I also didn't quote merely part of posts but rather provided them in their entirety. When your preferred posting style is one line drive-by snark then you are frequently going to look dumb by contradicting yourself.You are twisting my posts too. I was referencing 401k accounts. I’ve said repeatedly it was dumb and greedy to have all your retirement 401k invested in one stock.
You disagree?
and you think the defined benefit utility workers who lost their pensionand the AA partners who were wiped out were similarly unwise?
If you don't want to do that then stop posting like that. Nobody has to twist your words. -
So in your mind Democrats discussing documents with a witness is the same as Republicans ignoring and refusing to discuss documents with a witness.LOL this is what always happens in these hearings. You dont remember dems talking about yearbooks with Kavanaugh?
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.-
2
-
-
Other than the last one, the Lee suggestions are pointless because nobody calls it Lee Road. It is always served to as Robert E. Lee by the locals. Having it changed to a different Lee won't actually accomplish the goal of not changing the way it's referred to.
I still say Night Train Lane is the way to go. -
I understand that perspective, but being told "nope, still can't be full members" is absolutely hurtful. Having people officially vote that yes you will remain second class citizens is the same as voting the first time to make them second class citizens as far as their perception goes.
And the international nature of the Church makes it a far more difficult prospect to effect change from within.-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:
Please, please, please, please let a Republican staffer make a quick OK hand sign to someone off camera.
Still focused on important aspects of Washington, I see. The drive-by posts in this thread have been more illuminating than y'all realize.
-
I have no need to make myself feel better about...uh...myself. I'm not LGBTQ and I'm not a member of the UMC, although my wife used to be and we were married in a UMC church.
The only people whose perspective matters in terms of how this vote makes them feel are LGBTQ members of the UMC. They have been told they are unequal in the eyes of the UMC because of whom they love.
-
2
-
-
22 hours ago, Zavala said:
I take it you don't understand anything about statistics. An officer cited guns on search warrants 96% of the time. Zero guns recovered. In a jurisdiction where 44% of people own guns.
Go take a few classes then come back and report what the odds are of this occurring randomly, i.e., without any malicious conduct on the officer's part.
-
12 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:
actually the vote was to affirm the traditional view of marriage/sexuality and that any continuing actions outside of that view are unrepentant sin.
You just repeated what I said using words that make you feel better about it.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, tjhooker said:
dude, i was posting about the whether or not the trump payment violated campaign finance law then some lost their shit and went personal with info from SSS. I am more than happy to continue political discussion. Just because you don't like what I am saying doesn't mean it is derailing the thread.
You are correct they shouldn't have posted that. You are also completely missing the point. You reported it, immamac cleaned it up, and then you kept it alive. Just shut up about it, deal with it in the appropriate forum, and this thread will move on. But if you insist on keeping it alive then people will continue to talk about it. Your choice, but the choice you continue making shows that you want to be seen as a victim.
-
@immamac thank you for cleaning up the thread. At this point, however, you need to go through and start deleting tjhooker's posts because he's the only one keeping that sidebar alive. He has a victim complex and loves to be persecuted. So as soon as he shuts up about it we can all move on. Thanks.
-
5
-
-
14 hours ago, F250 said:
I am a Methodist myself and I am aware of the problems that are happening with this issue. I've followed William H. Willimon who was mentioned in the article for awhile on his blog, podcasts and books. He has been trying to prepare people for this eventual crisis for a number of years now. I remember when this was happening with the Episcopal church about a decade ago and was grateful the UMC wasn't involved. Well it is happening in our backyard now too. The same divide between U.S. and non-U.S. churches occurred with the Episcopal church as is happening with the UMC. I'm hoping the church remains united, as a denomination we have been supportive of the LBGT community for a long time and hopefully everyone on both sides of the issues will see that before any drastic measures are taken.
They literally just voted to say that LGBTQ people are not equal in their Church. That is not supportive.
You are hoping for your denomination not to split because it's part of you, not for the benefit of LGBTQ people. There are a shitload of raw feelings right now and for good reason.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, tjhooker said:
because he votes 98% of the time with Club for Growth.
That's an incredibly weak argument, if you can call it an argument at all.
It is therefore your position that in order to be a better Congressman, all one would have to do is read the Club for Growth's position on any bill before the House for a vote and vote in accordance with their wishes. Seems flimsy.
-
1 minute ago, Mole said:
I’m not aligned with him politically and am against ignoring sexual assault, but his office was extraordinarily responsive when I had an issue with the VA. They quickly identified and solved the problem and communicated clearly the entire time. My experience with getting help with the VA from other congressional offices has been very negative.
That doesn’t excuse some of his poorer traits, but he seems to run an efficient and responsive office.
Thanks, that actually is an important service that Congressmen should provide.
Still doesn't answer why tjhooker thinks he's one of the better Congressmen.
-
1 minute ago, tjhooker said:
or one of the better congressmen
Based on what?
-
Listen, @bad_teammate, this is a complicated situation and I actually do see the logic in both sides of the end result positions. But that's a lot more complicated topic I don't have time for right now. What I do have time for is to tell you that if you spell it Columbian just one more time I'm going to have to neg you. I mean the irony of someone arguing in favor of Latin American self-governance with zero American intervention but then spelling it Columbian instead of Colombian is rich as hell and I enjoy it, but enough is enough.
Have a blessed day.
-
9
-
1
-
1
-
The House Oversight Committee 2019
in Cloak Room
Posted
You seem genuinely interested in the testimony. Excellent jump-in and an excellent question.