Raider5678

Agreed. However, there is one thing that's always a bit concerning. While one may fair extremely well F2F as you put it, there's always the possibility it's simply because the person they're discussing with doesn't have time to think about what they said, doesn't have the information, etc.

With the exception of having a few brews, I've always found face to face discussions much more meaningful than online discussions. Don't get me wrong, online discussions have their pros, but face to face it's like you can automatically gauge exactly what the other person means when they say something, as compared to trying to figure it out.

Ikr? I read this thread like "I've been doing this since I was like six to make lights do weird things when I look at them."

This topic is definitely no longer about Donald Trump and Hitler Quotes. My final position on that is I don't know whether he does or not, however, it is true that hundreds of thousands of people study Hitler for multiple reasons, from military purposes, psychology, and yes, even public speaking tips. Hitler was an evil bastard who murdered millions of people. He deserves no praise or excuse for his actions, however, it is a fact that he successfully took control of Germany and was extremely good at what he did. If people wish to study how he got there, I don't care. The ability to speak to crowds like Hitler did, the ability to organize wars, and the ability to do many other things Hitler did are not inherently evil. What's evil is what it's used for.

It was directedly challenged, yes, but hardly shown to be mistaken. Nuclear sites are difficult to hide. https://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-find-hidden-nuclear-facility-9392 North Korea has been under U.S. Surveillance since the Korean War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Unless you have proof otherwise of the things I have stated, I wasn't shown to be mistaken.

And that is an opinion. As is mine. Agree to disagree.

My apologies if this is how it came off. When I said: "While it's possible North Korea does have hidden nuclear testing areas, I wouldn't equate it to Syria. ... As far as I've found, we're pretty much certain of all of North Koreas nuclear facilities." I did not mean it as an absolute. I said we're pretty much certain of of where all of them are , however I didn't mean for that to come off as "We're certain of where all of them are". Additionally, directly afterward, I provided the reasoning for why I'm pretty much certain we know of where they all are, as compared to why we didn't know where all of Syria's were. "Which is another factor. Syria was able to produce more chemical weapons because of the relative ease of creating them(to nuclear weapons). North Korea may have chemical weapons we don't know about, but nuclear testing facilities and holding grounds are virtually impossible to hide with modern technology unless they were made and stopped running before major U.S. surveillance began(which was right after the Korean war). I mean, we detected a nuclear blast under a mountain. (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.) I feel like we would have noticed other operational sites as well. That's mainly why I'm willing to say it's most likely cleared up. But I guess it is possible. We'll see." See above as to why I don't think that is a likelihood. "discovered" is the wrong word to use when talking about the ones we know about. More like "Watched them get built and kept an eye on them over the years." Again, my apologies. I did not mean for my claim to come off as having 100% certainty. I meant for it to come off as a very likely certainty(like 95-99%).

They are not hidden or secret though, we(The U.S. Government) knows about them. The long-standing suspicion simple comes from those of us outside the loop of intelligence services. The report was about the activity at these sites(which we clearly know about).

Alright.

Wait, doesn't Hawking radiation escape a black hole though? I thought that's how they lost energy over time? Alright, thank you for your answer.

You're not understanding what I said. Your link, which is what you used to say the bolded line, did not mention anything about hidden or secret nuclear facilities. It solely talks about what North Korea is doing at those nuclear facilities. To clarify, this is the link you provided:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44679144 So. Let me explain this to you how I see it. Me: We're pretty much sure of where all their sites are. You: Actually, no. Many are hidden and still secret. *provides link detailing activity about north korea at nuclear sites, not about secret or hidden nuclear sites.* Me:(Reading the link detailing activity at North Korea Nuclear Sites, and realizes it, decides you must be trying to say something about activity in North Korea at nuclear sites, while what I originally said was that we know of the nuclear sites.) They're not violating agreements.(I said this because I believed that since you provided a link about north korean nuclear activity, you were trying to draw a correlation between Syrian chemical weapons activity). You: Stop moving the goalposts. I wasn't talking about the agreements.

Would this mean if there was no mass there'd still be gravity or just that no matter where you go if there is so much as a single particle somewhere there is gravity?

Hawking radiation derives energy from the black hole(to put it simply). Would we be able to test for the existence of a singularity inside of a black hole by looking at How powerful the Hawking Radiation is at the Event Horizon? I was curious because if a one-dimensional point of infinite density emits Hawking Radiation differently then a given amount of mass at the center of a black hole that has volume due to the distance required for Hawking radiation to "travel?" from the "surface" of the mass to the event horizon. If I'm right about what I just said above(I'm probably not. Someone correct me), then this would be how we could test it: Larger black holes compared to smaller black holes, if they had a singularity, the Hawking radiation would in part be due to the distance from the singularity to the event horizon. Larger black holes compared to smaller black holes, if they didn't have a singularity, the Hawking radiation would in part be due to the distance to the event horizon from the surface of the mass in the middle. This could, in turn, be measured by the energy of the Hawking Radiation, which would be more powerful for large black holes and weaker for smaller black holes because of the distance required to travel. The energy of Hawking radiation for black holes with a singularity in comparison with size would be linear as the distance would increase solely between the distance of the event horizon and the singularity. If there wasn't a singularity, the graph would be curved because the distance between the black hole and the surface area of the mass in the middle would not be linear, as the amount of mass required to increase the volume of a sphere doesn't linearly correspond with the surface area. Surface area to volume of a sphere: I'm pretty certain I just have a flawed understanding of how Hawking Radiation works, so just let me know.

Good point. I'm going to apply the same thing to Fox news and stop complaining about it.

I fail to see how saying that speculative reporting on Trump's thoughts is a false equivelance. I didn't equate it to anything.

I haven't moved the goal posts, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of doing that. My entire previous point even highlighted things about how hard it is to hide nuclear facilities as compared to chemical weapons facilities. Your report that you provided didn't even touch on suspected hidden facilities, holding grounds, or launch site. It talked about what they were doing at the facilities that we know about. Do not equate those two different things. One is a statement I made, one is not. The report focused on what they were doing, not some giant new nuclear facility we just found out about. Hence, my original assertion is still 100% true, and I haven't moved the goal posts. You're also taking what I've said away from the original point I made. Syria was doing things against the agreement, and we suspected it before it was confirmed. At the moment we don't suspect North Korea of doing the same thing Syria did.

Correct, I mispoke. Lowest unemployment for half a century. No True Scottsman references excluding examples by changing the original assertion without any specified rule. There is a difference between simply adding "real" or "true", and providing examples and nbers to back up the clarification with solid rules which aren't abritrarily defined. No "true" Scottsman would be of I said "no real supreme Court case" and didn't provide metrics or examples. I provided that legal implication, legislative changes, and impact on everyday life would all be examples of metrics, and provided the example of roe v Wade to explain such example. Therefore, no, this is not the logical fallacy you have asserted I have made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know whether you still believe I made the logical fallacy you have mentioned regardless of what I've said for other reasons, or if you no longer believe I made the logical fallacy. I personally don't believe my argument matched the criteria, so if it still does please let me know. Either way, I reccomend doing so in a PM because this is getting quite a bit off topic very quickly

You said I was using a logical fallacy when I said they were not equivelant. Perhaps I took that the wrong way?

Did you look at the numbers, statistics, data, or any of the other things I mention in regards to modern wars vs major wars in the past? 36,000 U.S. soldiers died in Korean combat alone. About the same number as all of the u.s. troops deployed in every single one of the countries you mentioned and more. They are hardly equivelant, and surely even you realize that Americans do not view them anywhere near the same levels. There is a difference between moving the goalposts(changing my position entirely) and clarifying something. Now, would you like to dispute any of the things I mentioned?

What North Korea is doing in the reports doesn't violate any of the agreements that were made. Unlike Syria which was violating agreements. There is a difference.

I really don't see how this means the economy is in turmoil. A sector of the economy is always struggling. Additionally, I feel little sympathy for those "farmers" because they're not some random family owned farm, they're multi billion dollar corporations which export food to other countries and bully real farmers, like the ones that live in my area, into going out of business so they can aquire more land, more power, and more money while at the same time collecting the overwhelming majority of benfiets meant to help small farmers. Additionally, they don't even provide jobs in my area, they buy multi million dollar pieces of machinery which automatically harvest the land. And, having bullied the local farmers out of business and buying their labd they then completely abandon selling stuff in the local market because the real profit is in exporting it. No sympathy. Absolutely none. If that is your definition of major then our family members didn't fight in the same wars. I.E. Vietnam, Korean War, Desert Storm. Look at the number of combat troops deployed to all of those countries compared to the Korean war alone. War is war, yes. People die. However in the majority of people's opinions, those aren't major wars like we've seen in the past which is what I was referencing, and should have clarified. My apologies. Correction on my part, no NEW major crisis. Most of those deal with gerrandering IIRC and the Arab bank has to do with foreign corporate liability. Either way hardly decisive in regards to so many other cases like Roe v Wade, etc, especially in the extent of legal impact, implications, and changes to the current state of American politics. More decisive that a lot of cases, granted, but not decisive in the sense that the majority of people have come to see it.

Reporting a story in a negative light is reporting a story the way it is which would be in a negative light. I.e. Trump says something racist as usually and media reports it as racist. Casting a story in a negative light is taking a story which most people wouldn't consider negative, and portraying it in a negative light. I.e. Trump looks like he's thinking something racist during a meeting with Kanye.

Hmm. I wasn't aware of this previously. Thank you.

Sorry, I mistook this as you saying it wasn't biased.

The very fact they're letting international investigators in is a gigantic leap from their previous foreign policy procedures. While it's possible North Korea does have hidden nuclear testing areas, I wouldn't equate it to Syria. For one, we had suspicions that Syria was still hiding them, but signed off on the idea that all were destroyed(I suspect for election purposes). As far as I've found, we're pretty much certain of all of North Koreas nuclear facilities. Which is another factor. Syria was able to produce more chemical weapons because of the relative ease of creating them(to nuclear weapons). North Korea may have chemical weapons we don't know about, but nuclear testing facilities and holding grounds are virtually impossible to hide with modern technology unless they were made and stopped running before major U.S. surveillance began(which was right after the Korean war). I mean, we detected a nuclear blast under a mountain. (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.) I feel like we would have noticed other operational sites as well. That's mainly why I'm willing to say it's most likely cleared up. But I guess it is possible. We'll see.