Leaderboard

I would have thought D Trump would just pay off one of the jurors, resulting in a hung jury. But knowing him, he would have used campaign financing, instead of his own money 😄 .

They also have learned that the simple act of repeating falsehoods can make things "feel" real (which apparently is the current benchmark of things). Essentially all bases are covered. If it is a fine or probation, it is evidence that the whole thing is a witch hunt and no big deal in the first place. They are being persecuted (which apparently everyone wants to be and therefore feels real). If he gets the maximum sentence, it is clearly evidence of a witch hunt and shows that conservatives are persecuted. As apparently nothing exists beyond short-term memory (and I have doubts about that), one cane remodel reality at any moment, which is incredibly convenient if one does not want to take personal responsibility for anything. I feel like that folks think folks think that politicians have to do this complicated maneuvering and mind manipulation and so one to get folks on their side. Meanwhile current predominantly right-wing populists realized that just making stuff up on the spot works even better. Having no shame somehow became a superpower over the years. Missed that part earlier, but IIRC in the US, criminal cases does not allow for majority convictions (that would only work for civil cases). I.e. the verdict had to be unanimous, otherwise it would be considered a hung jury. I think Cruz in an interview mentioned something to the effect that one of the jurors should stand up and take one for the team to create a mistrial. Which basically tells you all you need to know about their regard for law and order.

it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence. So while I’m sure you think you have a point, by not providing enough discussion and context, you have not made it apparent.

This has been tested in South African courts. In what I consider to show a remarkably conciliatory attitude, the San and associated peoples stated that they didn't object to the term 'Bushman' providing it was framed in a positive context. Obviously our racist little troll falls way short of that requirement.

I actually started to have a modicum of respect for Hayley when she stood up to Trump. Seeing her sign US bombs on a pallet in Israel, and simultaneously seeing children in various states of bodily mutilation from US weaponry, has put her down the ethical toilet, as far as I'm concerned. She's on par with the worst Zionists. This is not intended for the conversation to segue into that debacle.

In a sophisticated society, ostensibly the most advanced country on the planet, having an openly partisan judicial system should not be leader of the free world. It seems, even as a convicted felon, he could be POTUS. That is a travesty.

I don't know about you, but I was born, for the first and only time, as a result of my dad and mom having sexual relations, about 65 years ago. Do we need to have a 'birds and bees' talk ...

I hope that the sentencing could include some hours of community service, perhaps cleaning the bathrooms in the subway. And no letting him just toss rolls of paper towel to the other cleaners.

My turn? You have yet to provide any. And I can’t provide evidence of things that didn’t happen - i.e. bias avoided. Truth sounds like the situation with SJ Gould’s definition of “fact” “In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” IOW, the body of evidence is massive, so overturning it requires a significant amount of evidence. An observation or two won’t suffice; the first approach would be looking for confounding conditions, like a strong wind or someone throwing the apples, should you see one rising. You would not just throw out the concept of gravity based on that. So yes, the laws of thermodynamics would be such Truths. If someone presented you with a device purporting to be over-unity, the first order of business would be to look for the hidden battery, as opposed to chucking thermodynamics in the dustbin. “Why is dimreepr a distracting source of pithy commentary instead of actually adding to the discussion?” — me

Nope, even in the US tuition usually does not cover the cost of teaching. In public unis, each student is still subsidized by public monies. Tuition just covers the short fall. Similarly, the largest chunk of money in private unis are endowements. The only group making money from tuition are for-profits, but their quality is so bad, it is often around scam levels. I forgot the precise numbers, but I think tuition covers roughly 30-60% of the cost per student. So tuition does not provide excess funding.

One misconception that's rather common. Science never states something is the truth. Every theory or model is " to the best of our understanding" due to observational and experimental evidence. This includes the various laws such as the above mentions laws of thermodynsmics. The only truth behind them is their success rate to match observational evidence.

! Moderator Note Be mindful of rule 2.1 here. Tread carefully.

Trump's lawyers can't file any appeals until sentencing has taken place on July 11th - because the trial isn't complete until that has taken place. This point was covered in a Q&A with former prosecutor Glen Kirschner on Brian Tyler Cohen's channel.

Reportedly Cohen doesn't blow kisses, or ex-presidents, as well. Failure to recuse would be sufficient for me. We seem to in an epidemic of judges refusing to recuse when professional standards scream for it

I know you're not sexist...so I await your similar Cohen photo...

I am not saying that there is no bias in science, there are plenty examples for that and how it created bad science (most notably around issues of race, for example). But, as you know that is not my point- rather that arguing about interpretations requires a deep knowledge of, well, what is known. And there are plenty of cases where the data simply does not rule out alternate interpretation. But obviously Bohr and Heisenberg disagreeing is not the same thing as a random youtuber deciding that infection biology is all wrong. Uh, must have missed it. I had to walk my partridge.

WhooHooo! At least R Nixon had the integrity to quit the Presidency; this joker is still running. I guess they'll re-open Alcatraz for the Presidential debates, and possible inauguration speech. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of themselves for letting someone convicted of an election crime to still run.

I just can't take this conversation seriously, may be scientific bias, when he's talking about reincarnation ...

Even if, somehow, this doesn't hurt his election chances we to be relieved he wasn't found not guilty, or even hung jury He would have had a field day with that.

"Truth" really has no place in science. It assumes a transcendental certainty that simply is not present in science. Anything in science can be challenged and has to survive challenge for it even to be considered. Prevailing well-tested theories and models are not deemed truths, nor are they put on pedestals. Rather, they have a huge mark on their back as any scientist able to initiate a paradigm change will indubitably make their mark in their community. That being said, the reason why theories have prevailed is because they are well supported by data and numerous studies will have to support the essence of their finding. In other words, it is not enough just to make some half-arsed assumptions and then logic your way through flawed premise- you really have to generate the data (which clearly does not exist yet, otherwise folks would have used it to challenge the models) that are so rock-solid that they can topple all the existing data in satisfactory manner. Folks don't declare any random opinion on the internet as a scientific finding for good reason. What many are not aware is that scientific work is hard and takes time and expertise. Most work from PhD students represents years of training and (hopefully) hard work, yet depending on the field, often the results alone are insufficient to publish on their own. The reason is that it takes them years to master a methodology and only towards the end are they able to implement it on a particular problem. The assumption that we can just avoid that and just reason our way to completely new insights is, frankly, quite arrogant.

Y A A A A A Y ! ! ! !

Did you ever consider that I may have a point?

You probably don't think of YOU as an eternal soul. I don't think of that physical terminal body wrapped around my natural eternal soul as ME. The SOUL is ME. Some man met some woman to fabricate a temporary body for my soul in 1963 according to what I believe. To reject all notions of possible life hereafter is about as naive as to reject all possibilties of intelligent life beyond planet Earth. I see Man as a member of the animal kingdom. I think of Homo sapiens sapiens as being three subspecies: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. This has to do with skin/hair/eye pigment, hair textures, skull shapes and facial features. Comparing white people, black people and yellow/red/brown people is about like comparing bulldogs, German shepherds, chihuahuas and American foxhounds.