By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This morning, we see the news that we've all been expecting, i.e. Braverman gone.
Aside from holding some "extreme" views on what constitutes "hate", her crime is clearly that of trying to do a Brutus on Rishi (a bit like he did with Boris).
The Tories will forgive almost anything except their own people showing the world what their club is like from the inside. Cruella has done that and has paid the price.
Her next appearance will be a challenge for the leadership.
In the event that she wins, I will be moving abroad for a few years because even the politics in my other "official" country are not as toxic as hers.
1
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 13:19 - Nov 16 with 1659 views
What you're talking about is called algorithmic bias, it's probably the biggest and most active concern in the space currently.
Put simply - in laymans - if a system is trained on data with bias (and most are) then the outputs are by their nature biased.
We've actually seen real world examples of this already, for example Amazon decided to use AI to filter CV's but had to pull it because the CV's started rejected women's CV's because there were no senior women in their leadership.
If you want a good book to read on it then Weapons of Maths Destruction is a great primer, or the netflix film Coded Bias is good from a tv point of view.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 16:16 - Nov 16 with 1613 views
Testy? No. Whilst I have a general concern that the easily led are buying into conspiracy theories more and more as the internet is awash with them, I'm confident that most logical, thinking adults see them for what they are.
Normie? Just a word- means nothing to me positive or negative.
Where I think you begin the usual practice of conspiracy theorists is when you try to summarise what I said in a way that I did not say.
I did not "advocate a secret society", I supplied some facts that are there for all to see.
You also need to be a little careful around "secret" and "secrecy" or risk being accused of hypocrisy. You claim that society abhors secret cabals and societies yet you belong to one - the society of unproven conspiracy.
Finally, who do I want leading one of the most powerful nations on earth? Do I want an orange ego maniac who would pursue an isolationist policy because it suits him to hide from the trust? Do I want somebody who has ideas and makes statements that are contrary to science and logic and who could lead the US into a dangerous cul de sac leaving the door open to Russia/China etc? Do I want a far right state governor whose idea around - for example - evolutionary theory and the right of women to control their own body are at best reactionary?
No to all the above. Given the choices, do I pick a frail old man who is forced to listen to a group of advisers of differing opinions but who are obliged to reach consensus?
Of the options available, that's where I'll go.
Obviously, if the shape changing lizards disclosure their true selves and stop being "secret", my views may change.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 07:41 - Nov 17 with 1539 views
901 or Niney if I may - I like a bit of numerology but I think our relationship has developed enough to rid ourselves of such formalities -it makes you sound like an inmate - you're not in prison are you, you do seem to have plenty of time on your hands?
It's sweet that you defend senile old men, not so much those with a daughter who accused their father of sexual abuse and a crackhead son with dodgy dealings in Ukraine and China, and is himself clearly a puppet to his "advisors"
I always feel people have lost the argument once they resort to Lizard talk, as if to say you can't trust this person, as some conspiracy theorists (ie David Icke, who has a weird messianic complex) believe this, ergo every conspiracy theory is equally ridiculous. I would have hoped that a man of your undoubted intellect would be able to see right through that Niney.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 14:29 - Nov 17 with 1481 views
My day job is dealing in facts and how the law treats those facts. I like it because it suits my personality to be sceptical or cynical about pretty much anything until I see the facts and can verify them.
The problem I have with many areas of life - including conspiracy theory - is a lack of verifiable evidence and in particular in this case, a lack of anybody able to produce hard facts. We get lots of innuendo and claims of "they do this and don't tell us about, so let's assume the worst" (or let's assume whatever story suits our purpose).
Given that I am more comfortable with facts, I am always surprised that others have a capacity to basically turn off their critical faculties and just accept what is clearly unverifiable fairy tales.
I should know better than to try to drag people out of black holes they have volunteered to go down.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 16:26 - Nov 17 with 1469 views
I think a Niney is a see through Nighty made up of 9 different shades of transparent material, but I may be wrong , I would suggest a go ogle search to confirm.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 12:10 - Nov 20 with 1315 views
He is anti vax, anti Semitic, climate change denier, claims a "shadow world gov't" is in place and worst of all a GB News contributor.
Now I confess I've not read everything he's written nor heard every loony tunes video or radio show he's appeared in but he lacks the one thing that all his kindred also lack - proof.
For example, he claims that the record temperatures recorded in Europe this summer were false because they were ground temperature and not air temperatures. This is denied by met offices all over Europe. His response? "They're all part of the conspiracy and we're being lied to by the mainstream media".
That's not proof.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 16:48 - Nov 20 with 1268 views
901, I thought the one thing we could rely on with you is that you are a facts based man. Calling Neil Oliver anti Semitic is a serious slur that I don't believe you can substantiate, but then you exacerbate that by saying that being at GB News is worse than anti semitism. I think you are losing the plot Sir.
If Neil Oliver isn't intellectual enough for you, try Ed Dowd on vaccine stats or Naomi Wolfe or Dr Yeadon read RFK on the real Anthony Fauci.
Proof - there are countless things that you believe in that have no proof, evolution for one, absolutely ridiculous theory promoted by the same people promoting eugenics and transhumanism, a theory that Darwin himself would not support now if he was still alive. You believe this and all the other western mainstream crap because that is what us respectable middle class Englishmen do, not because you have absolute proof, because you don't. The only thing you have proof for is the things you have done or seen with your own eyes, the rest is a mixture of hearsay and propaganda. The best we can do is look at both sides and make our best informed decision.
If you don't want to question anything keep away from dangerous lunatics like me. You will be telling me next that William Shakespeare was an actual person from an illiterate family in Stratford on Avon.......
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 17:03 - Nov 20 with 1260 views
Come on then Frannie, give me all your "proof", have you found the missing links, can you explain entropy or how the fish jumped out of the water and exchanged their gills for legs?
Actually don't bother, nothing would make me believe that Victorian nonsense. You're a words man, give me your take on who wrote Shakespeare instead.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 20:56 - Nov 20 with 1212 views
For all the gatekeepers of a victorian theory that has no legs , try this video where you see scientists moving away from this belief and seeing it for what it is;
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 09:40 - Nov 21 with 1147 views
Why believe mathematicians? Apart from Probability theories what s their expertise? Surely Biologists, Anthropologists etc. would provide a better knowledge base.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 14:38 - Nov 21 with 1115 views
Done a little research on the Hoover Institution and two of the three "mathematicians".
The Hoover is a right wing, Christian fundamentalist group run by ex VP Condoleeza Rice who was a Sec of State in a Bush administration. She tried when in power to have evolution theory banned from being taught in schools.
David Berlinski claims to be a mathematician. He has written books on calculus and algorithms. Safe to say that these books have divided opinion. Some say that parts of them are insightful. Others say that they are inaccurate and unreadable.
Steven Myer, like Berlinski, is an advocate for intelligent design theory. (Described in the MSM as "pseudoscience").
The other chap I have not reviewed.
So we have a bunch of right wing, Christian advocates with an interest in pushing intelligent design theory vs hundreds of scientists, philosophers, statisticians, etc who have studied life over 200 years.
Whose you money on?
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 20:30 - Nov 21 with 1086 views
You are not reacting to what they are saying, but who they are - this is not how you find truth. You dismiss people because they are "Christian" or "Right wing". You dismiss them because they are not of your ilk, not the Intelligentsia, they haven't bought in to a post Enlightenment atheism maybe? Truth is found in surprising places 901, it doesn't begin and end amongst the Guardianista.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 21:20 - Nov 21 with 1077 views
They didn’t say anything other than criticise the science community. I wanted to hear what they actually believed in but heard nothing of the sort. That’s the trouble with these things. Put something out there with evidence to back up your theory for wider discussion. That’s how it works.
Anyway get a good nights sleep Jelly. Tomorrows a big day for the biggest conspiracy of them all.
“Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously'
The burden of proof does not sit on the side of science that has been validated and proven via various models and double blind tests over the course of over a century.
It sits on the side of those that claim it not to be true based on no evidence.
So then in response i'd ask you to prove, with facts and double blind trials that yield identical results everytime, how intelligent design is real and evolution not.
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 15:24 - Nov 22 with 1014 views
I invested an hour of my life in listening to their self aggrandising echo chamber. I could discern no viable theory for saying evolution is not real and happening today, yesterday or millions of years ago.
I could work out some pretty fundamental flaws in their "logic".
Being kind, I'd describe their attempt to disprove evolution as weak and far from convincing. In particular, they have no valid alternative theory (or at least none that have not been subject to science fiction plots for generations).
As Mr Tache says, evolution has been peer reviewed literally thousands of times over the last 200/300 years and none of those minds have identified or pointed to any fundamental flaw. The discussion amongst the cabal here didn't either.
My issue with labels (Christian, right wing) etc is that often they pile luggage onto the individual who then wants to justify the label they've chosen - consciously or unconsciously. This often results in a point of view that is biased from the outset. This inevitably distorts their argument and moves them away from objectivity.
There are many past and present scientists who believe in "god". If you read their views, you'll see that often they consider that their work is part of a plan to discover whether "god" exists. And that is as it should be. They are using their intellect, skills and training to find evidence and accept that the purpose and plan of such an infinite being/essence cannot ever be understood by us. Their arguments always leave the reader with a question to answer rather than forcing them to adopt a position. Again, as it should be.
Truth is subjective. Read Kierkegaard (died 1855). He was a theologian and philosopher. He took great pains to show that everybody's truth is different and trying to impose "your" truth on somebody who is rational will ultimately fail to hold. You can impose a truth upon the weak minded, easily led, those who are looking for a truth or those who have a need to be told what to think and do. You cannot do that on somebody who can think for themselves.
I don't read the Guardian. Nor the Times, not indeed any mainstream newspaper except for world events and UK politics. I follow left, right and middle ground news channels and broadcasts because I want to know what the "other side" say. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. I always however try to stay neutral until I have enough facts to make a decision. Hence there will be issues upon which I will never gather enough data to decide upon.
I do have a healthy dislike of people who say "think like me". That is disrespectful, insulting, potentially lethal and gives rise to many of the terrible regimes we've seen in history. I'd like to say it no longer happens, but it does.
Finally, if you want to overturn centuries of evidence and introduce a new idea, perversely doing it by evolution rather than revolution is perhaps a better strategy.?
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 10:56 - Nov 23 with 966 views
901, I agree with most of your argument here and love the Kirkegaard shout-out! Can I suggest you read Nigel Tubbs' views on philosophy (he is at University of Winchester).
My first slight disagreement is in your views on evolution. Whilst, it is accepted science the slight issue is that there are still some evolutionary gaps (eg. the missing link). My own view is that evolution is not incompatible with intelligent design - I just don't have enough data to 100% support one or other or both views!
What I do know is that religion is a man-made construct used to exert power over people/society. Even if there is a divine being, I doubt whether he is exclusive enough to favour one people over another - something that is very apposite at the moment!
My second slight disagreement is that I don't dismiss conspiracy theories or those out of the box theories out of hand. There is often a grain of truth and, even if we disagree, questioning the status quo is vital for us to continue evolving. In fact, I wonder whether humanity has reached it's evolutionary peak. (Obviously in Pompey, this happened a couple of thousand years ago ).
0
Braverman gone - and I suspect nobody is sorry on 17:18 - Nov 23 with 922 views
I'm not claiming that evolution is the whole answer or perhaps even the final answer. There are certainly gaps in how a semi intelligent ape evolved and then evolved again into man. It's also clear that the humans we are today is the surviving strain from a number of of failed attempts to find a model that works.
There are also of course various theories about whether the "sudden" (i.e. less than 40,000 generations), increase in brain power were the result of biological accident or outside interference. Look no further than Arthur C Clarke's 2001 for a novelised example of how that might work.
So I don't dismiss the seeding or interference arguments completely, it's just that there is more evidence for life being endemic on Earth and being able to play the long game in terms of failures and successes.
Intelligent design is perhaps more towards the seeding end of the alternatives, i.e. we were placed upon the planet by a space travelling species and granted our gifts of intelligence. Back in the 70's Van Daniken was keen on this and I read pretty much all of his stuff but he eventually started to believe his own publicity and lost the plot (and me as an interested reader).
Religion is also a very difficult area. Clarke observed that any sufficiently advanced race would appear to less advanced races as gods. So a "supreme entity" could well be some super advanced species that we are unable to comprehend. I'd refer you a novel by Philip K Dick called VALIS which explores this.
I admire people who have faith because I've that sustain those people through some very difficult times. In many ways I'm envious that they have something which gives them strength and hope.
I generally disapprove of religion. If a supreme entity is indeed unknowable, then why should the words of a human be seen as anything other than their own words?
Again a couple of examples. The first editions of the bible that were based on the Dead Sea scrolls (writings found in caves and dated to a century after Christ) omitted several "books". there are theories as to why they were omitted but local politics certainly had a say. So here we are at the outset of Christianity and already political decisions as saying what the great unwashed should believe.
The King James bible widely used in the UK was produced at a time when our experiment in a republic ended and we re-installed a king. That bible discusses at length the divine right of kings to rule and sermons at the time were directed at that message. It was a mass propaganda campaign and not the "word of God".
All conspiracy theory has a grain of truth. The problem is that often that grain of truth is planted and becomes the only fruit we are allowed. Organised religion was at one time a conspiracy theory of course and look where that is.
I do of course wish that people approached such issues with the same cynical attitude I do. The truth is that there are out there many, many people who are better thinkers with better minds than mine who are able to articulate their thoughts and who have reached a different conclusion than mine. I can add nothing to their lives.
There are some who are perhaps less good thinkers than me (not many I suspect) and there I think I feel (a little) obliged to point out some tools that could be deployed when they want to consider something. One is to search for facts and verify the sources.
One of the evils of religion of all kinds is that a few lead the many. IN days when literacy was in single digit percentages, that was inevitable. Today literacy in the UK is north of 99% and people have access to more information, more tools and more sources than ever before. Use them. Don;t be lazy and just accept what is presented to you.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
