Magic Market Index for July 20th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for July 13th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for July 6th, 2018
  • posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Americans: stop reading this and go vote.

    Are you back? Good. Discuss.


    Go vote for your master slaves... Wait wrong master... Russians hacked LOL!!!!!!!!!! Russia Russia Russia, Fake news, lalalalalaa don't have an argument.... lalalala Racist, Xenophobe, Sexist.

    You are a Joke!!!!

    Go Anarchism!!!!
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along

    Well not really, I asked for evidence, he provided, I agreed, and compared to the US. Still doesn't mean Russia hacked or sponsored hacking the emails.


    ***
    Well I get warning for teaching BS how to debate:
    "Are you debating or moderating. If you want to be the moderate please be neutral and then you can claim that I lose at the end of the debate."
    Yet when he/she tells me how to live; "Words for you to live by." and I report for flaming... nothing... Bias to the core!!!! This forum 'debate' section is just 'circle jerking'.
    ***

    Yous are sticking up for people with sex beads around a child's neck with the Hash tag #Chickenlover which means Child lover in FBI code.

    http://imgur.com/Z9PelXZ.jpg
    https://i2.wp.com/therealstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-11-12-14_00_28-Films-TV.png?w=800&ssl=1

    It really makes me sick, that you are passing this off as 'fake news'.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Lithl »
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Your link that FBI agrees with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump is not the same as the FBI saying there is no links to Russian hacking. FBI agreeing with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump =/= Russian hacking or paying for hacking.
    Did you read any part of the provided link beyond the headline?

    Even a cursory scan of the article reveals that in context, the method by which Russia helped Trump was via the hacking.

    Well if someone wants to quote something from the article, instead of going here read all of this... or read this book to understand my argument. What evidence does this present that Russia done the hacking?

    @Boyachi
    If the IP addresses are Russian

    They came from a Russian timezone, this does not mean that originated there. You can bounce your IP off many servers.

    what motive would the common Malek or Nikita have to hack the DNC, if not for the money?

    Not going to war with USA.

    @BS
    Impeaches credibility and establishes motive.

    It may be bias, but does not impeach on credibility or establish a motive.

    Nor is it evidence of the Russians not doing it.

    Still doesn't mean that did it.

    You: Why are we talking about Russian hacking? The content of the emails is what matters!
    Me: Okay, show me evidence of a crime in the emails.
    You: ... Why are we talking about the content of the emails? The Russian hacking is what matters!

    irreverent rubbish you made up with assumptions. pft...

    So wait, the emails don't matter all of a sudden?

    Really? who said that? They are not needed in the context of the example I gave.

    Is the highly oppressive regime in Russia a "primary target" of Wikileaks? Obviously not. Assange did not tell the truth here.

    So a set of emails published, now means Russia is not a "Primary Target".

    Are you freaking kidding me?

    Cool, US n allies do the same thing. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un

    Me: Show me evidence of the U.S. interfering in a foreign election.
    You: Here's eleven seconds of Hillary Clinton discussing the rebellion against a man who never stood for an election in his life, and rolling her eyes at the suggestion that she was involved.

    Arming Rebels in Syria to over throw Assad.

    When articles report fabricated and factually incorrect information, that's pretty good reason to call it "fake". And we're not talking about fake news, anyway.

    You should give good argument why it is fake. But you don't know much about arguing but the looks of it.

    *sigh* If only...

    You had your counter and I replied. This is going in a circle and still waiting on evidence...
    I've closed, you have no evidence.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Do you have an email or money trail?
    Yes, an electronic trail consisting of IP addresses and Bit.ly accounts. Now, do you have an email or money trail for a 9/11 conspiracy? No. Do you have any evidence for such a conspiracy remotely equivalent to the evidence presented here for the Russian hack? No. So why do you believe in a 9/11 conspiracy? And don't try to give me the "not relevant" brushoff, because what constitutes evidence is very relevant. Tell me exactly why you are demanding a standard of proof to which you do not hold yourself.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    "FBI Agrees with CIA Assessment That Russia Wanted to Help Trump" LOL ok, Russia wanting to help Trump =/= evidence for Russian Government hacking or paying hacking group.
    I wasn't posting that as evidence of the Russia hack. I was posting that as evidence that you had made a patently false statement about the FBI's findings. At least have the decency to own your mistake.


    These IP addresses n Bit.ly account does not prove it's the Russians. Me believing that 9/11 used bombs does not prove Russians done it either. How do you know my standards haven't changed. This have nothing to do with 9/11 for the 4,5,6... time...

    Your link that FBI agrees with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump is not the same as the FBI saying there is no links to Russian hacking. FBI agreeing with CIA that Russia wanted to help Trump =/= Russian hacking or paying for hacking. There is no mistake that I have to own. It is your reading comprehension that is a mistake, please own that mistake.

    FFS quit with these smart ass comments;
    "At least have the decency to own your mistake.", " that's more than you have ever had in support of any of your pet theories","Reading comprehension, dude.","Words for you to live by."
    You are just trying to shame me and not find the truth. It makes you sound like a thin 24 y.o. feminist SJW collage student with glasses on his second degree, whose parents have been broken up.


    Edit: Putin says democrats are sore losers, lost both houses. lol Smile
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRJDILGVkWA
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    -There is no evidence, but 'magic' connecting WORDS that claim the Russians Hacked.
    Words and numbers. As in, lines of computer code and IP addresses. For the third time: that's more than you have ever had in support of any of your pet theories.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    -FBI, Ron Paul, Julian Assange have said it is NOT the Russians.
    Assange wouldn't tell us if it were.

    Ron Paul is an unconnected third party whose opinion is meaningless.

    And the FBI said in no uncertain terms that it was the Russians -- you're just flat-out misrepresenting the truth there.


    There is code that was used by some Russian located group in the past and that IP went through a Russian time zone... "For the third time" that is not evidence of Russian Government hacking or support. Do you have an email or money trail? Which I have asked in the past which people have not answered the question...

    "FBI Agrees with CIA Assessment That Russia Wanted to Help Trump" LOL ok, Russia wanting to help Trump =/= evidence for Russian Government hacking or paying hacking group.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Edit:
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Not relevant to this exposure of Hillary's emails. Maybe nobody from China or Russia, has come forward.
    Oh, but they have. Just not on Wikileaks. You may recall the Panama Papers this year? The largest leak of anything ever in history? Among lots and lots of other stuff, it included damaging information about the finances of a close friend of Vladimir Putin's -- just how did a freaking cellist get his hands on billions of dollars? Now, Wikileaks was not responsible for publishing the Panama papers. According to the leaker, he attempted to contact Wikileaks multiple times with his information but they never got back to him. Furthermore, when the Panama Papers were published through another outlet, Wikileaks was critical of them, calling them an "attack on Putin" funded by the U.S. government (even though the government only funded the OCCRP, just one out of the many news groups reporting on the leak, which also included Russian papers Vedomoya and Novaya Gazeta, and the leaks also embarrassed many Westerners, bringing down the government of Iceland). A strange reversal for an organization supposedly dedicated to freedom of information, don't you think?

    All this was in the New York Times article you were bashing, by the way.

    Still not relevant to this case.

    There are two possibilities: he is working for Russia or he isn't.

    If he is not working for Russia, he is going to say he is not working for Russia.
    If he is working for Russia, he is still going to say he is not working for Russia.

    Because him saying he is not working for Russia would happen either way, it does not constitute evidence either way. Something is only evidence if it would not happen any other way.


    Still not evidence of the Russians doing it.

    Of which I still have yet to see you cite a single word of incriminating evidence. Which, again, has been the goalpost I set for you all along.

    You setting them does not mean I have to answer. We are looking for evidence of Russian Hacking or support.

    (a) Now who's moving the goalposts? (b) Yes, they actually are; that's what the "Bear" means.

    Bear =/= Russian Government.

    Reading comprehension, dude. "If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as [this] = you don't have evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as this. You believe in that conspiracy on the basis of no admissions of guilt, no paper trail, no evidence of any of the sort that you're demanding here. Your bar for evidence is, in fact, absurdly low for it. But when it comes to Russian hacking, this for some reason you don't want to believe, so the bar suddenly becomes absurdly high, and all the real and demonstrable links to Russian agents -- the sort of links you do not have for 9/11 -- are just "speculation". Be consistent. Set the bar at the same standard for both cases.

    My 'bar' is still not evidence for Russian Hacking.

    “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.” -- Julian Assange, 2006 (source 1 source 2)

    " but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations" Even if they haven't published anything, still not proof of Russian Hacking or Support.

    ...and not to belabor the point, but Russia kills journalists.

    Evidence? But still doesn't prove Russia Hacked or Supported.

    Words for you to live by.

    Whatever, telling me how to live now... Still not proof of Russian hacking or Support.

    Do me a favor: google "Trump China Taiwan". Then try to tell me Trump is peaceful.

    I said most peaceful candidate... "Reading comprehension, dude."

    Evidence?

    Hillary overthrowing Gaddafi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    Accessing private email servers is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. If I hacked into your emails and published them online, I would be criminally liable. Notwithstanding that, it's a bit rich of you to praise Russia for exercising freedom of speech when that is a freedom the Russian government has been strangling to death domestically. Siding with Russia against the United States in this is siding with a nation that has one of the most extensive state-controlled media systems in the world against a nation that has enshrined journalistic independence as its literally its first political ideal. Which, again, is why it's so bizarre that Wikileaks and Assange have decided to do exactly that.

    There is no evidence of Russian Hacking or publishing the Emails, Wikileaks published them. It is a claim by the CIA, the FBI does not support that claim. The freedom of speech in the US is fading, especially calling it 'fake news' and google and Facebook now censoring. With or without the emails, Russia is still allowed to publish news against the USA illegal actions, which bias Journalists/editors seem to be missing out on.

    Nobody here is saying the emails are fake.

    They are saying the news is 'fake' without reason.




    I'm just going to give my closing statement. This is going around in circles and not achieving anything. No evidence has been brought forward on the Russian Hacking/Fake news side.

    -There is no evidence, but 'magic' connecting WORDS that claim the Russians Hacked.
    -FBI, Ron Paul, Julian Assange have said it is NOT the Russians.

    There is no case.

    Good Luck, have fun, Bye. Keep up the Russian fear propaganda and lead us to war :S
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The people were never really promised that all their individual well-being would be improved or even protected. They were promised a strong and powerful nation, and in many ways that is what they got- but at the great expense of individual well-being.

    They were promised employment. So that will help them individually.

    Quote from Kahedron »

    No the Nazi's got into power because the Weimar Republic got bored of instituting Dictatorial Measures followed by a fresh election every 6 months and they wanted some one that just might be able to make it slightly longer between elections and could easily be controlled. That unfortunately didn't work that well when they picked Hitler to be their puppet figurehead in the Reichstag.

    At this point I should inform you that the NSDAP was a minority party in the Reichstag at the time, it was only after Hitler got given the Chancellorship did they start getting any appreciable power.

    And before you continue with your claim that the Nazi war machine was designed to protect the German People, it wasn't it was built up solely to piss all over the Treaty of Versailles which Hitler loathed. This being the same justification Hitler used in his initial moves which ultimately lead to WW2.


    'Stability' of government is for the 'well-being' of the people. (or do you think an unstable one is better for the people? It might be, and I could probably argue that it could be.)

    Getting rid of the Treaty of Versailles will be for the 'well-being' of the people. (Or do you think sending your currency overseas is good for the local economy?)

    If they are getting rid of the Treaty then defending it and creating employment then this is for the 'well-being' of the people.

    And I see that you have backtracked over your claim that their socialist policies were the major reason Nazi Germany Collapsed. Good now apply the lesson that arguing with the historical record is a bad thing to the rest of your arguments and come back to us.

    I have suggested that the physical reason would have been the bombing, but what lead them to getting bombed could have been their social policies (as described above) that wanted to look after the 'well-being' off the people. And your last little bit of spew is getting a bit 'smart', keep it civil plz. (I wonder if 'debate' is about finding truth or shaming the opposition.)

    Socialism and communism are set up to look after the 'well-being' of people and fail. Capitalism is set up to look after self interests and succeeds. We have had the highest standards of living increases from capital investment.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from Typho0nn »

    What has been discredited?


    Don't know don't care. The question wasn't about anything being discredited. Are you going to stop spamming this forum and actually answer it which was: Is Wikileaks the only organisation that is giving Wikileaks a 100% truthfulness rating or is there a third party that is doing the same thing?

    Its a fairly simple question and only needs a yes or a no as an answer.


    It's not spam, it answers your question as well. If there is something that has been discredited then that is going to make Wikileaks not have 100% accuracy/Truth. I guess organizations that have him on or report about him support his claim, such as RT, The Belfast Telegraph, dailymail, AMTV, Alex Jones, President Elect of the USA.

    Now on the flip side, is there any organization that claims that the Washington post has a 100% accuracy/truthful rating?

    But even if he is lying that still does not prove that Russia done it. The fact is Hillary had an illegal private email server that was open to anyone, and destroyed evidence under subpoena.

    We live in a global world, with US Freedom of speech there is no reason why Russia should not be able to support a candidate that they think is more peaceful and will work with them.

    Just some thoughts not a part of the argument:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion
    *I wonder how Bernie supporters feel about this. I wonder which side they voted for and are arguing for now. Or have they over looked the content of the emails and gone along with this Russia propaganda fear campaign set out by the corporate media and US government who are bought off by the same people. And who also own the Military industrial complex and want to go to war with Russia for more money. Maybe Bernie being a sell-out is part of the evil Russian Propaganda campaign*
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial%E2%80%93media_complex
    "General Electric (which owns, but is in the process of divesting, 49% of NBC) is a subcontractor for the Tomahawk cruise missile and Patriot II missile..."
    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/
    Thought I would include this one for a bit of a laugh... How times have changed Frown I really don't want war.
    Why has the left gone from peaceful protesters to rioters and warmongers?


    Here is some developing news:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0 -No links
    http://observer.com/2016/11/liberals-are-suddenly-experts-in-russian-espionage/
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    He has his 100% accuracy record to defend.


    Isn't this 100% accuracy record from Wikileaks itself? So Assange's own company is giving him a 100% accuracy record? That seems... questionable.

    Maybe he has lied in the past. But yes you are right, it is Wikileaks with the 100% rating, but if he is lying now it would hurt the Wikileaks reputation. But still need solid evidence to say it was the Russians. Maybe a Russian insider will come out and bring some evidence/witness to the US corporate media...


    Way to not answer the question. Which I will put in simple terms. Is Wikileaks the only organisation that is giving Wikileaks a 100% truthfulness rating or is there a third party that is doing the same thing?


    What has been discredited?
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    He has his 100% accuracy record to defend.


    Isn't this 100% accuracy record from Wikileaks itself? So Assange's own company is giving him a 100% accuracy record? That seems... questionable.

    Maybe he has lied in the past. But yes you are right, it is Wikileaks with the 100% rating, but if he is lying now it would hurt the Wikileaks reputation. But still need solid evidence to say it was the Russians. Maybe a Russian insider will come out and bring some evidence/witness to the US corporate media...
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Well neither 9/11 or Bill are reasons to discredit Assange on source of Hacked emails.
    Your logic is, "He didn't do it because he said he didn't do it."

    By that logic, Bill Clinton also didn't do it because he said he didn't do it.

    And the hypothetical 9/11 conspirators didn't do it because they said they didn't do it.

    If you think that Clinton did it, or that the 9/11 conspirators did it, you acknowledge the possibility that someone can do something even if they've said they didn't do it. Therefore, it is possible that Assange did it even though he's said he didn't do it. Therefore, Assange saying he didn't do it does not constitute evidence that he didn't do it.


    I am saying there is no evidence to suggest other wise. He has his 100% accuracy record to defend.

    Assange started WikiLeaks promising to focus on revealing the state secrets of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.

    Where are those state secrets, exactly?

    Not relevant to this exposure of Hillary's emails. Maybe nobody from China or Russia, has come forward.

    You said he has every reason not to lie because lying would ruin his record. If the truth is that he is working for Russia, telling the truth would ruin his record more than lying about it.

    Is he working for Russia, that is yet to be proven. You calling it the truth means nothing.

    Do you? For this, or literally anything you claim?

    Hillary's emails from Wikileaks...

    Or it could have been the Russians.

    "Could" is not Proof.

    Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear are Russian.

    Still not the Russian Government.

    They didn't just use the same program, they used the same Bit.ly account.

    It COULD have been them. But still no definite links to the Russian Government. No money trail...

    If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as documented tactics, tools, server addresses, and online accounts used in the attack that are distinctive to a covert operations group known to be sponsored by the U.S. government and act in its interests, you would be shouting it from the rooftops.

    So you believe this one with its 'evidence', yet disbelieve 9/11 with its evidence? But still not relevant to this case.

    If you're absolutely determined not to credit it, then I can't make you. But it is credible.

    It's only credible cause they use words like COULD, possibly, if, connections, links... there is no solid evidence, so they can speculate using these terms and still be credible.

    Parallel logic, like I showed above.

    Still going to need more than Bill lied about Monica so that discredits Julian.

    They're chronicling Assange's public actions. All the evidence is out in the open, they're simply aggregating it to show that there's a pattern. Do you dispute any of what they say Assange has done, or that there's a pattern? I repeat: where are the promised state secrets from Russia and China?

    What promise? Assange COULD just be going for a candidate that might pardon him. These Secrets don't matter to this case, he might have a bias in those that want to help him live.

    They go on to explain how exactly they believe Assange is being used by Russian intelligence services. But that doesn't work as well for your position as an out-of-context quotation.

    Their belief is not proof. They could probably make that same case for me. I supported Trump cause I thought he was the most peaceful candidate that wanted to work with Russia to help defeat ISIS. Hillary wants to go to war with Russia and Take out President Assad. The US is interfering in other countries elections. Maybe Russia was maybe it wasn't but it was still using free speech, which is part of the US constitution. The opposing side should have used arguments to try and defeat them, but now they are silencing them and just calling them 'fake' without reason. The emails are real!!!
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from Verbal »

    Australia isn't in a recession, although it is possible we'll be in one next year.

    But it isn't because the government has become more socialist because have you seen our government? They are pretty aggresssively attempting to reduce the social programs the government carries out.

    Indeed, if one were to draw terrible conclusions on short-term data, as you seem to be want to do, one would suggest our (mostly non existant) problems are caused by the government being *less* socialist.

    Also telling people the news they are sharing is fake isn't supressing their free speech, it's trying to educate them.


    Government debt is still going up they haven't done anything. They dollar is losing its value. Long term data! Government spending is a socialist thing.

    To tell them it is fake without reason is dumbing them down, it is comparable to religious speak. Educating them would go into reason why it could be fake.

    "problems are caused by the government being *less* socialist."
    Explain how. Like I have said, the freer and less regulations the easier it is to do business and grow the economy and standards of living.


    Explain how. Show me the stats. Although, spoiler: You can't because they don't exist.


    Some of my remarks above explain how. Through inflation, government spending, our standards of living decline, population density increase.

    http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/
    http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html
    http://goldsilverworlds.com/gold-and-silver-prices-over-200-years-long-term-gold-and-silver-charts/
    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/855e6f87080d2e1aca2570ec000c8e5f!OpenDocument
    "Between August 1966 and August 2000 the number of unemployed Australians increased from 90,300 to 596,000."
    Holden and Ford shutting down. There are less full time jobs, and most of the jobs growth is in the service sector with part time jobs.

    over the long term the government is always growing and therefore becoming more socialist. Back in the day poor people couldn't have so many kids, now they get paid to have kids and more people go on government support.

    Quote from Kahedron »

    That might be the theory but the History of China, Russia and pretty much every other country that has implemented Communism has not cared about the little people. I'd suggest you take a look at the Great leap Backwards.


    I don't think we will ever see a country where communism is implemented where the government will care for its people.

    I'm sure the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Communists were really greatful for the protection granted to them by the overly complicated German warmachine. The Warmachine that also wasn't being created to defend the sections of the German Population that Hitler liked, rather to agressively dismantle a Peace treaty he didn't like and then in the acquistion of Living Space for the superior Aryan Race.


    Oh yeah you are still to demonstrate conclusively how that caring for the population is the sole or eveb main reason why Nazi Germany Collapsed.


    The warmachine was not there till after Hitler came to power. Communists Russia was allied with the Nazis for a bit, the communists would have been safe in Hitlers rise to power. not sure about the Jews, I think Hitler wrote about them in his book, being part of an international banking conspiracy and starting world war 1. And the Gypsies probably weren't targets as well till after he came to power, they could have been brainwashed by his propaganda and some might have supported him...


    The Nazis or National Socialists, got in power because they were promised a prosperous nation. The people were promised 'well-being' and is't how they were able to go to war. It might not be the main reason for the collapse, (which could just be bombing by the allies.) but it was a part of how they got there.

    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The stats show a tiny decline over the last few years- do you really think that's telling of any major upheaval? Because it's not.
    I have also yet to see a single shred of evidence that this has anything to do with socialistic policies.
    I don't think we have been getting significantly more socialist in policy in this time anyway.


    Trends can be seen to predict the future. More government debt = more social policies, debt is increasing in US and Aus and other places. More debt is more money in the system, stealing from the value of your dollars which will decease living standards as you cannot buy as much. I would say things like Obama care and the increase in debt is a sign of becoming more socialist in policy.

    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from Typho0nn »


    I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)


    I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.

    And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.


    Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.

    Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)

    Alright... and how do these relate to; "Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear." How are they doing better from "Human rights" and "moral sense" and expanding. I can't see how you have argued that these things are allowing to survive and expand. Rights are constantly violated when expansion is needed. Government will forcefully buy out any property for expansion as in China and has happened here in Adelaide with the Southern Express way/Port rd expansion.
    You are simply not talking about what I'm talking about. You're echoing my words without understanding what they refer to. And to be blunt, I'm not interested in trying to teach evolutionary ethics to someone who's going to fight me every step of the way. So let this one go. If you're truly interested in the topic, you can start by reading Leviathan and The Origin of Species, then maybe a modern synthesis like Darwin's Dangerous Idea or The Better Angels of Our Nature.


    Sorry that you cannot see how they relate, especially in contrast to the topic at hand of libertarianism. I just wanted some examples or references to argue against your statement, like I did in counter, it might be a modern time example but it is still a part of "Social evolution". Others seem to have got it so I'll "let this one go." with you.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Well Ron Paul has come and and said that Hillary had a private server, and its an anonymous source. And there is no evidence to verify the claims made by the CIA. The CIA had meddled with many other countries elections.... Enjoy!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skQN8zct-ow

    Also this is a possibility
    http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/julian-assange-hints-murdered-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-was-source-of-damaging-email-leaks/news-story/40cabac21d722f1f8d4d115f7788c460

    Another example of how the Media believed the state lies instead of investigating for themselves. And therefore spreading fake news themselves.:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-wrong-iraq-saddam-hussein-cia-interrogator-john-nixon-george-w-bush-invasion-a7482456.html
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    So Bill has admitted guilt and confessed. Julian has denied the claims. Innocent till proven guilty... GrrrAAAAAH Can you see the difference?
    Has anybody that you believe was responsible for the 9/11 attacks admitted guilt and confessed? Or does "innocent until proven guilty" only apply to the people you want to be innocent?


    Well neither 9/11 or Bill are reasons to discredit Assange on source of Hacked emails. But I look at evidence and judge the people who I want to be innocent. This is why I am defending Assange because he has proven to be a reliable source while the Washington Post and other corporate media outlets have not(WoMD).

    If Assange admits he is a catspaw for Russian intelligence, don't you think that would ruin his record just a little bit more?

    A little bit more than what? You have not disproven anything from Wikileaks. And your if case is not disproof either. Do you have documents with a money trail or a sound recording or...

    Means: The DNC hack was performed by the same malware code, written by a Russian-speaker in the Moscow time zone, used by Fancy Bear in previous attacks, and it sent information back to the same server. The Podesta hack was performed with the same Bit.ly spearphishing tactic used by Cozy Bear in previous attacks.

    If it has been used before, it could have been easily copied from someone else to use to make it look like the Russians. Coming from a time zone does not mean anything, you can re-rout around the world.

    Motive: Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear's attacks have consistently targeted enemies of the Russian state, and this attack against a presidential candidate who is resistant to Russia's neo-imperialist interests and whom Putin seems personally to dislike is no exception.
    If it was them it is still not the Russians. Do you have a money trail or tape recording or.... email or...

    Opportunity: We can see the malware in the DNC's servers that have Fancy Bear access to them. We can see the very spearphishing email that was sent to Podesta, and the email from his tech support accidentally telling him it was "legitimate". We know he clicked the link, giving Cozy Bear the opportunity to access his emails. We know they were in there.

    Someone can access it to if they used the same programs that these 2 groups have in the past.

    These 3 arguments are nothing but speculation and no evidence.

    Yes, basically. Arguments require credible evidence. Which we have.

    So to sum up, if an argument cannot be "proven" (more precisely, "supported with evidence"), it doesn't need to be disproven or discredited. It doesn't have any proof or credit to begin with.


    "Your first 'source'
    "individuals with connections" connections is not proof....

    Second source
    "believe are spies..." belief is not proof."

    It is not credible and there is no evidence, it is all speculation.

    How?

    How is bill relevant to discrediting Assange?

    Please stop trying to be clever by echoing me. You only ever faceplant. I didn't point you to the Times, I pointed you to a single article by the Times. If you can't read one article, that's on you.


    Was just using the same standards. There is no evidence in there, that the Russians done it. All speculation. What evidence are you claiming that they have?

    They are even in support of Assange; "American officials say Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services."
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.