Leaderboard

CNN had to change their headline and remove Trump Jr photo from the Wikileaks story. Then they had to remove a tweet from him included in the story as the issued a correction about getting the date wrong too. #CNNfakenew

I'm not really getting what I wanted out of this thread, on the other hand I am: politicians lie, nobody will give an inch, and nobody will lose face. As such, poverty, desperation and terror will persist and everybody there prefers that situation to the alternative. You are welcome to your ways, I suppose.

The problem is that you can't suffer fools gladly.

They still come to the door and do lots of telemarketing.

Even the crappy drivers passed a test that you could not.

I can simply this argument in an extremely logical way. But it will require spelling things out very specifically. If you have patience, I think most, if not all, might agree to the concern in how I will explain it. Step 1: Assume that we are as gods that can look into any one of our own or each other's creative worlds that are simplified versions of our own. Insight one: IF any of us chooses to, we can opt out of looking at any worlds. If you are one who opts NOT to look (not to 'observe'), you have to remain indifferent to judgement about the worlds that others voluntarily participate in observing. This means that for you who do NOT want to look, you LACK the capacity to judge whether the world that others DO choose to participate in observing. This may seem all too obvious. But my first point in this set up is that if we cannot or choose not to observe some world, we can easily dismiss what we lack knowing. For the Israeli-Palestinian 'world' (or worlds we can imagine some of to create), this means the simplest absolute solution to ANY problem we 'judge' is to simply NOT OBSERVE it. Insight two: Given we are 'gods', we cannot be "forced" to look or observe any other world but our own. (We could technically create our own worlds too by initiating it and then ignore it after that, of course.) So, for this Israeli-Palestinian world, all we can contend with is to those who 'choose' to look at the situation. This at least makes you eligible to judge. If at any point you walk away while the rest are continuing to observe, you may miss information that may make you ineligible to further judgments. In other words, if you do NOT participate in the essential details about what those of us DO choose to observe in this 'experiment', you may be disqualified by those of us who have been there throughout the experiment. This point I am making can be compared to hearing "HALF" truths about some situation or scenario of hearsay by some friend who might be gossiping about themselves or another. The information COULD be true that you 'observe'. But if you only have part of the story, a half-story could be worse to draw conclusions than the whole one. So, I ask that you read each part in order here for the argument and if you opt to skip part of it, you may miss some significant detail that would make you understand fairly. Step 2: Let us 'gods' consider a simplified world that has the following components: (1) and Island or Islands will represent a limited environment within any world we create for this experiment, (2) Two people of equal initial conditions, such as being 'twins' in genetic kind. The islands will be our sub-worlds within worlds that we can imagine represent isolated conditions within a larger universe that 'may' have some possible affect on them if we so choose. For the people, let us imagine one to be P0 and P1, where Px will stand for any one of them arbitrarily. Step 3: First let us imagine observing a world where each Px live on their own islands in some given world: Fig.1 In this world, each have their own island and so there is no need to question whether they can affect each other. This kind of scenario is as two distinct people withing distinct environments. It is similar to the condition of the world we are observing as being isolated from those other 'gods' here who opt out of observing. The difference is that we can 'observe' these Ps worlds and so our observations CAN affect us for the act. If it 'harms' us for looking at, we can simply STOP looking and go on to do something else. However, it could pleasure us even for simply entertaining us and keep us participating. What I am leading to is that we should choose to 'judge' these worlds upon some set of goals that we observers have in common. The 'common' goal I desire here is to agree that we UNDERSTAND the scenario that relates to some common other 'sub-goals' that we set up for our worlds in an "objective" way. For instance, we have to agree that we SEE the same world we are observing at present and to the conditions we set as some example to test. For the above scenario, the 'goal' is to understand the above figure as two distinct islands with two distinct peoples. I will label them with the subs '0' or '1' in what follows. But the image above is to help us see that these are two 'copies' of people (P) with identical circumstances. My subgoal here is that we 'agree they are isolated peoples that do not affect one another in this given world'. If this is the case, we can move on to the next step. Step 4: I will change the world such that these two people are distinct with the same initial conditions that live on the same world (goal). The 'subgoal' here will be to 'agree to the subconclusions I present below as insights.' Fig.2 Insight: If the island is sufficient to enable both Ps to exist and their existences do NOT prevent either one of them from perishing, P0 and P1 will not require 'affecting' each other for the better or worse. In this condition, both Ps are a part of their environment and for this condition, that they not require affecting each other AND their existences do NOT prevent either one of them from perishing, they may live peacefully whether they pay attention to one another OR later opt to affect one another. This conditional world means that even if they CHOOSE to later on to do anything with each other, EVEN if it seems to be potentially 'hazardous', they cannot actually cause either of them to perish. This state is a kind of "don't care" situation because this world is not really LOGICALLY different than the prior world in Fig.1 regarding their survival one way or the other. Step 5: Let us use the same world set up of Step 4 with Figure 2 BUT alter the condition such that Px can affect each other. Because they are equal, it is arbitrary which one we pick to represent the first actor or the other in what follows. This means that I will arbitrarily pick P0 as one who behaves first with P1 responding. Furthermore, let us assume that IF they choose to affect each other, they can now potentially destroy the other AND they do not even KNOW of 'harm' nor 'pleasure' (any emotive values these represent of 'value') unless they are affected that risk their survival. Insight: If they behave without actions that harm the other, each survives and have no emotive value one way or the other. They don't 'need' each other for their survival and so are relatively 'indifferent' to each other. Insight: If we imagine P0 act in some 'accidental' way that affects P1 by threatening its life, P1 derives a novel emotion of discomfort as its survival is now threatened. Though confused of this novel experience, it knows that P0 is the causal agent in the environment and so derives a dislike against him/her for that behavior. At first, he/she may attempt to walk away, but if (s)he gets too close, P0 eventually behaves similarly. P1 decided to try to communicate this discomfort to P0 by indicating s(he) 'feels' threatened. [I'll use "he" from now on to make this easier. I hope none of you other gods find offense. Just let it mean any of us.] P0 is irreverent towards P1. How can it 'know' what even a 'feeling' is? P1 may as well be saying, "I am jucapultasic towards you", some made-up word that means nothing and perhaps confusing. Not being buffed by its 'free will' to behave, P0 doesn't take offense nor interest at first. So he repeats the act towards P1 . This may help P0 to make better sense of the meaning of jucapultasic. But P1 being assaulted again, has an infuriating anger, more negative feelings, towards him and strikes back hard with a copy of that behavior. That is, P1 now acts with reflective force against P0 in an amplified version of what he did to him. (Maybe this strong reaction seems justified to make up for the two assaults P1 received from P0, he thinks). P0 now has discovered its own novel emotion of discomfort. But it is even relatively worse towards him as he almost dies and it takes some time to regain his health and mind enough to do anything about. P1 in the meantime is now "relieved" and so experiences a pleasureful emotion. While relieved, he leaves P0 alone as he is no longer affecting him negatively. His experience of discomfort makes him realize that he has a sympathetic reflection upon the action and opts NOT to continue any more harm towards P0 as he heals. Insight: If comparing this to real circumstances, we might think of this as children who learn of what is or is not harmful and pleasant from initial experiences. I conditioned this without a 'positive' default towards each other in the way the Jewish nor Muslim community may feel initially indifferent to each other prior to any harm that might instigate emotive problems. While the 'relief' represents what might be a type of incidental 'pleasure' that arises distinctly from each other's relationship. They may feel pleasures external to each other. But this might be like Px possibly having some default 'comfort' about themselves without a need to seek it beyond their internal experiences. The set up here for WHO might be WHO here is irrelevant. P0 could be Muslim (or Palestinian) OR Jewish (or Israeli). All that matters is that they derive some initial experience that caused both to be 'affected' negatively towards each other. I've also used this neutral thought experiment to show how in this initial condition, no one is at 'fault' FROM OUR GOD'S EYE-VIEW. This way, we should now all agree that these comparisons are possible conditions for the real world, even if they may not be the literal case in fact. As 'gods' we act as nature's reality that knows of whatever truth is about these groups without bias. Like nature, we could be indifferent to the details of these people, just as P0 and P1 are indifferent to each other as Px. Step 6: Continuing on the last step, let us agree as gods to continue observing to see what happens. We may be able to alter the conditions as gods, but being our mere creations, any 'harm' or 'pleasure' these Ps have do not concern us because we could undo this for simply erasing our creations. What we want to determine for now is IF they can resolve the problem ON THEIR OWN. They may both be able to and not be able to if we randomly ran the world's again in what follows. But under those situations, we'd have to grant them a 'free will' beyond OUR relative knowledge of their choices. This is then just to see what 'possibilities' may occur if we blinded ourselves to incidental details. For instance, in some contingent world, the original 'harm' done by P0 may have been done without P1 initially knowing that the act came directly from P0. It could have been due to some apple falling out of a tree by P1's lack of knowledge. So let us guess some possible continued scenarios instead from what we've already determined instead. Let it be the case that from Step 5, P0 recovers and though some time is passed, he no longer trusts P1 in a bit stronger kind than P0 because that very strong single blow was sufficient to put a greater emotional discomfort and even some 'fear' with respect to P1. P1 on the other hand is only mildly concerned but more confident for its experience and belief that it successfully communicated to P0 what it means to be harmed. But later, when P1 confidently walks past P0 forgetting and perhaps 'forgiving' him already, gets a violent blow from him all of a sudden. P0 was fine until P1 walked too close and he figured that to avoid the kind of extreme threat he experienced before, he'd strike first without hesitating. He only strikes P1 as hard as he experienced before. P1 has now experienced the MORE harmful experience that he gave to P0. He asks him 'why' he opted to act that way. He also adds that it was he who started the initial attack before and so his own action before was a 'reaction' to the harm imposed upon him. P0 responds that he only gave back precisely what was given to him. He may have 'accidentally' harmed P1 before but does not believe that he is 'liable' because he lacked intention. P1 asserts that this very attack was also only an initial natural response for the experience of discomfort he experienced for the attack. BUT, P0 , he argues, was MORE harmful for both "knowing" how he was harmed. So why did he justify this new attack? P0 then reasserts that even his initial harmful attack was long ago and was nowhere as harmful (twice as less) as P1's second blow. P0 argues that he hit him twice only because he was still ignorant of the meaning of the words, (like jucapultasic), he used to communicate the harm. Insight: We now have what I believe is the comparative condition of the Middle East's Jewish and Muslim issue with each other. As gods, we see how the scenario of P0 and P1 begun by relatively 'innocent' behaviors and seems to escalate from there. What might possibly happen is that they BOTH recognize the logic and realize that they both simply have to agree to STOP. The emotions involved though may also possibly continue to affect them and they might begin to argue who should stay on the island for not being able to effectively trust one another any longer. Each has now gained such emotional discomfort that they reactively fear each other beyond even their own 'logical' means. They each decide that the best solution would be to have one of them leave the island. One of them could find some other island and they both could then live in peace, right? I could expand upon this here but this should be enough at least to see if we have any agreement thus far. I believe this is the 'kind' of condition we have for the Israeli and Palestinian dispute. They both want to claim a place they initially shared at some point. While one may have been 'first' in some even earlier time, this still doesn't satisfy their resolution because they both seem to share the view that they cannot live together, if even just for some genetic reflective discomfort. Is there a possible solution? One I suggest, as gods, we are akin to 'observers' outside of Israel. We may not BE 'gods' relative to them in fact. But we are AS 'gods' if we are like the scenario above because we may possibly CHOOSE to act in some way to alter their conditions from without. To me, we could find some island that is equally as attractive to each,....copies of identical places they could exist in comfortable isolation. But we are NOT actual gods and so cannot alter the 'natural given world' we live in. But as observers that can be considered culpable for 'observing' what is occurring, we MAY have some influence. The U.S.'s decision (Trump's announcement) acts as some outsider directly imposing some outside 'god'-like support. This is like one of us demanding that say, P0, should leave the island without being able to have created an island for them to go. This condition is like 'favoring' one party over the other when both are objectively not at fault. But the 'support' of one comes at the expense of cursing the other as though they WERE in some 'wrong'. And even if they were to accept some assumption of the outside deciders to be selecting favor/disfavor WITHOUT emotional judgement, being the one of the parties that is of such a coin toss doesn't reflect well either. Should the Muslims/Palestinians, for instance, accept some 'suicidal' demise by nature simply for some arbitrary "fairness" of nature to toss the dice against their favor? This emotionally laden circumstance to me COULD be solved better if WE were to find a way that they both can coexist on the same island WITHOUT bias of favor nor disfavor to the other. Giving the 'prized' land (Jerusalem) to one or the other exclusively is equally as divisive because it still disrespects one of the parties, namely the Muslims here. We also do not want to reverse this either. The best solution is to try to make the 'prized' lands, like Jersusalem, NON-P0 and NON-P1 owned but to a Px place that is both inclusive of sharing with them AND any other 'x' of P that may come along now or in the future. Does this make sense? Do you other 'gods' here agree? Can you ADD to this with additional models onto this to see if there are any other solutions?

Yup. Behold the master; who makes SNL look like a bunch of amateur punks.

No this is Trump's finest comedy -

WOW!

Do you not see me bashing JT on this board? I can debate multiple things at the same time.

I actually do not watch that low life show called SNL. I get to see what they do with Trump when I turn on CBC to watch and see what kind of garbage they are trying to spew today against Trump. CBC likes SNL these days if only to see what is going on there against Trump. You know that liberal white hating CBC that despises Trump. Alec is a liberal joke. He is not funny at all. I am glad though we have you around here because you sure do keep me amused.

The whole public vs private aspect of the healthcare debate is really besides the point. You could have a good system using either or both. The real problems with our medical system.... 1. Conflict of interest / Protectionism Trade unions masquerading as associates, not only negotiate doctors salaries with each province, but they control much of the certification/standards regime. This is a blatant conflict of interest, and these organizations have an intrinsic interest in create artificial scarcity because it improves their negotiating position with the provinces. We have a chronic shortage a family doctors even though there are hundreds/thousands of doctors that have passed our medical exams. They are simply prevented from practicing. 3. Our proximity to the US We are a tiny market next to a large market, that has a system specifically designed to price-gouge patients to enrich investors and doctors. This drives up costs. 3. Trade Policy / Globalism This is probably the biggest one. Most workers face competition in some way from foreigners in developing markets. Their wages are pretty much stagnant. People like doctors and teachers though face much less competition due not only to successful and organized attempts to protect themselves from competition, but from logistics as well. The result is that the people facing competition, are having a harder and harder time buying services from the people that don't. Medical services, and education are increasing in cost from 5 to 10% annually because of this. Juggling around who the "payer" is (public or private) will do nothing to fix any of this. Costs in markets that use both methods are escalating. Everywhere. Wanna fix it? Flood the market with doctors. Theres 10's of thousands of good doctors around the world that would love to practice in Canada for 100k. Identify them, and fast track accreditation, and certification. Force our doctors to compete with them. Castrate the medical associations, and make it so the organizations that negotiate wages and salaries, are totally separate from the ones that control standards and certification. Fund more residency slots so that all the doctors that ARE here working.

Fake news. They also let Muslim cops shoot unarmed white women in their jammies.

I love cartoon soo much and here a cartoon related with the issue.