Mueller Investigation pt4

[acbytesla]

Really? Do you test the weight carrying ability of every chair you sit down in before doing so, or do you believe that the manufacturer did their job satisfactorily and that the chair will hold your weight without collapsing?

Do you test all the food your eat, or do you take it on faith that the company followed FDA procedures and that the food is safe to consume?

Shall I continue?

To be fair, that's evidence really, and not faith. If the chair was bought, or the food was bought in a regulated outlet, the probability is that these commodities fulfilled the safety criteria laid down by the authorities. One can reasonably assume that, so the very existence of the thing in the marketplace is evidence of its fitness. That is why deregulation is so bad an idea. It removes such evidence and compels the purchaser to undertake the tests you refer to.

What you are calling evidence is really just a bunch of claims. The Manufacturer claims that its chair is suitable for sale, it doesn't provide proof of that claim. The Food processor claims that it obeys FDA regulations, and the FDA claims that it checked to make sure, but there is no actual evidence given to the consumer beyond those claims. While the probability that those claims are true is high, it doesn't make them evidence for the claims to be true.

Bob says that he doesn't believe any claims without actual evidence, so....

It's called background knowledge, or priors, from Bayes' theorem. We use background knowledge, not faith, to understand that it's likely that the chair we're about to sit on will support our weight.

Addressed well Paul.

This idea that people use faith (at least how theists define faith) to trust that a chair will hold us, that our food is safe, that a pen will write or that gravity will keep us from floating away is not anywhere comparable to how theists define faith like in Hebrews. 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." There is a difference between using knowledge and history to assess a likelihood as oppossed to making a wild ass presumption without reason.

.

 

[Pixel42]

A religious colleague once tried the "you have faith when you sit in a chair" nonsense on me. I asked him if he would trustingly throw himself into a chair if it had a broken back and only three legs.

I did once sit in a chair that collapsed on me. I learnt from that experience, and every other experience.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1091017929808924672

JUST IN: According to Mueller and DC USA, discovery in the Roger Stone case is "both voluminous and complex," and "is composed of multiple hard drives containing several terabytes of information"—including bank records & comms taken from iCloud/email accounts, electronic devices.

Document embedded in tweet.

 

[Belz...]

Addressed well Paul.

This idea that people use faith (at least how theists define faith) to trust that a chair will hold us, that our food is safe, that a pen will write or that gravity will keep us from floating away is not anywhere comparable to how theists define faith like in Hebrews. 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." There is a difference between using knowledge and history to assess a likelihood as oppossed to making a wild ass presumption without reason.

.

I think that a bit of a switch happened, however, along the way. Faith is not necessarily the same thing as belief, and there are more than one way to define both.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This article argues that Stone's indictment shows how much documentary information Mueller has already been in possession of

 

[acbytesla]

I think that a bit of a switch happened, however, along the way. Faith is not necessarily the same thing as belief, and there are more than one way to define both.

They use faith to justify belief. Never reasonable.

Faith is the excuse people give when they dont have a good reason. Because if you had a good reason you would offer the reason.

 

[Belz...]

They use faith to justify belief. Never reasonable.

Faith is the excuse people give when they dont have a good reason. Because if you had a good reason you would offer the reason.

What I mean is that it's not erroneous to say that you have a belief that sitting on a chair will be ok. Belief can be based on evidence or reasonable expectations, etc.

 

[Belz...]

This article argues that Stone's indictment shows how much documentary information Mueller has already been in possession of

Link doesn't work because a bad word in the title has been bleeped by the forum.

For those interested, replace the stars with the f-word but with 'er' at the end.

 

[acbytesla]

A religious colleague once tried the "you have faith when you sit in a chair" nonsense on me. I asked him if he would trustingly throw himself into a chair if it had a broken back and only three legs.

I did once sit in a chair that collapsed on me. I learnt from that experience, and every other experience.

You mean you stopped sitting in chairs? Only kidding.

Sure, you might be wary about the next few chairs you sat in, but chance are, fairly soon you would return to casually expecting that chairs would support you.

 

[acbytesla]

What I mean is that it's not erroneous to say that you have a belief that sitting on a chair will be ok. Belief can be based on evidence or reasonable expectations, etc.

I get what you're saying. You make a presuppositions based on knowledge and experience.

I distinctly remembered when I was a theist struggling to justify my religion. I relied on this 'we all practice faith on a daily basis' argument as foundational. I use to use money as opposed to a chair. I think it's better. We all accept money despite that it is just pieces of paper, chunks of zinc and digits in cyberspace. Now that's faith I argued.

But of course, it is flawed since we'd quickly abandon our currency the moment people stopped accepting it.

 

[Pixel42]

You mean you stopped sitting in chairs? Only kidding.

Sure, you might be wary about the next few chairs you sat in, but chance are, fairly soon you would return to casually expecting that chairs would support you.

I don't casually expect a chair to support me if it has a broken back and only three legs.

We learn from experience what will and will not support our weight. A toddler will climb up onto almost anything, and if it collapses, the toddler learns a valuable lesson. We always assess the chair we're about to sit on, just because that assessment is almost always done unconsciously doesn't mean it isn't happening. We only become aware of it when that assessment throws up a warning which causes us to hesitate, and perhaps test the chair by leaning on it before trusting our weight to it.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't casually expect a chair to support me if it has a broken back and only three legs.
We learn from experience what will and will not support our weight. A toddler will climb up onto almost anything, and if it collapses, the toddler learns a valuable lesson. We always assess the chair we're about to sit on, just because that assessment is almost always done unconsciously doesn't mean it isn't happening. We only become aware of it when that assessment throws up a warning which causes us to hesitate, and perhaps test the chair by leaning on it before trusting our weight to it.

I never said you did.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The defendant (the company) is claiming they were hacked, right?

Why don't you read the posts and links.

FBI found no evidence of any hacking. If you find something contradictory, post it with a link.

But even if the 'company' claims it, it would be suspect to cover up their leaking the documents. They not only leaked the documents, they tried to distort what Mueller had.

 

[smartcooky]

Watching Rachel Maddow tonight, I have a more clear picture of what is going on:

I find that happens a lot

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Link doesn't work because a bad word in the title has been bleeped by the forum.

For those interested, replace the stars with the f-word but with 'er' at the end.

Thanks

 

[dudalb]

Stone is as lovable and moral and cunning as a ****-house rat. He will try every trick in the book, legal and illegal, to save his own skin. And if that means squealing on Donny then he will do it. Loud and clear.

It says something the aside from Donnie, Stone has no defenders in the GOP.
Fact is, he has been considered toxic by 90% of the GOP for some time. Just about every other political operative hates his guts.

 

[dudalb]

Watching Rachel Maddow tonight, I have a more clear picture of what is going on:
We indicted Concord Management
Concord Management as a defendant hired an attorney to represent them which gave them discovery and then that discovery provided by the Mueller team was leaked online.
Basically, they abused discovery and have no intention on protecting their defendants in trial and the data "breach" is just limited to what the Mueller team knew would probably be compromised anyway.

And COncord Management seems to have a direct line to Vladimir...

 

[dudalb]

I am sort or interested in what the report will say, if anything, about the motivation for Russia supporting Trump. More and more I am in the camp it was not so much to get a obedient puppet in the White House, but that they Knew Trump would cause massive disruption in the United States and therefore in the Western Allaiance as whole. Any benefits that Trump could give to the Russians were just a bonus.

 

[Bob001]

I am sort or interested in what the report will say, if anything, about the motivation for Russia supporting Trump. More and more I am in the camp it was not so much to get a obedient puppet in the White House, but that they Knew Trump would cause massive disruption in the United States and therefore in the Western Allaiance as whole. Any benefits that Trump could give to the Russians were just a bonus.

Yeah, that might be Putin's motive, but why did Trump go along? The question is what hold do the Russians have on Trump? What other candidate, particularly a Republican candidate, let alone a Republican president, would allow himself to be so openly and blatantly used by Russia? It has to be more than just a promise to build a tower in Moscow.

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, that might be Putin's motive, but why did Trump go along? The question is what hold do the Russians have on Trump? What other candidate, particularly a Republican candidate, let alone a Republican president, would allow himself to be so openly and blatantly used by Russia? It has to be more than just a promise to build a tower in Moscow.

20 plus years of money laundering perhaps?