Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Politics / Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Last post by LC on Today at 10:44:03 PM »
Quote
Honestly, I'm not trying to move goal posts. You frequently don't answer my questions so I try to word them differently.

I don't answer your one lone question on how atheists can determine good or bad. I've answered it multiple times in the past, you don't accept my perspective (which is totally fine), but then you keep bringing it up as, like I mentioned previously, the fallback argument when your position breaks down.

We can agree to disagree, but I'm not going to get into another 20 page waste of time debating morality. Like I suggested in my previous post, I think it would be productive if avoided this position in every discussion and tried to make your case in a less dramatic manner.
2
Politics / Re: Trump Has a New Press Secretary: Kayleigh McEnany
« Last post by ERICOPOLY on Today at 10:36:44 PM »
A Twitter account that tweeted a call to violence and claimed to be representing the position of "Antifa" was in fact created by a known white supremacist group, Twitter said Monday.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/tech/antifa-fake-twitter-account/index.html
3
Politics / Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Last post by ERICOPOLY on Today at 09:49:42 PM »
There is no moral truth,

It's settled then, there is nothing wrong with Twitter saying what they like about Trump's posts.

Eric, I spent a lot of time on that post and that's all you got? :(

Well, since you agree that no moral truth exists

It wasn't agreement; it was Devil's advocacy.  In other words, if you're right then Twitter can do whatever they want because nobody can say they are wrong.  Invert, always invert.
4
Politics / Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Last post by ERICOPOLY on Today at 09:46:44 PM »
I'm simply saying that if you're atheist, why think your moral code is better than Trump's (or Hitler or whoever)? Why do you trust it?

It's about justice.
5
General Discussion / Re: Coronavirus
« Last post by mcliu on Today at 09:32:45 PM »
Odds of second wave due to recent protests globally?
6
Investment Ideas / Re: EGFEY - Eurobank
« Last post by TwoCitiesCapital on Today at 09:31:54 PM »
What platform did you use to buy it in Athens?

Interactive Brokers
7
General Discussion / Re: Coronavirus
« Last post by DooDiligence on Today at 08:55:34 PM »
^The trajectory of this thread and the course of human effects signal dwindling interest which is too bad in a way because we shouldn't let the sun go down on the virus as interesting data continues to come in and this is the time when beginnings of answers can be formulated for many important questions. There has been a lot of noise.

Take the chloroquine issue. At first, the medication was heavily recommended with limited data and limited conceptual support and, at some point along the way and during good quality trials, the Lancet publishes a "warning" article (relatively poor method and limited validity) and the medication is declared dangerous, ending several trials prematurely. Disclosure: chloroquine is unlikely to be beneficial but this remains a position based on present knowledge and this interim conclusion could be changed.

When a company is affected by (or reports) an unexpected event, the actual price action often has little correlation with the real intrinsic effect on value. It typically takes a while for a more correlated pattern between price and value. When CV started to spread, there was a lot of uncertainty (not necessarily an excuse for poor policy). From January to March 2020, 1,741 COVID-19 focused articles were published across 59 countries and in 447 journals with unusual short times to publication and often a truncated peer review. Somebody came up with a flattened curve infodemic concept with two waves of data. A point has been reached where the proportion of solid data will be higher. If interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCsaGHsL9KY
Looking at the picture for 5 to 10 seconds is probably sufficient.

This noise vs signal issue is also found on this Board (IMO). i've been spending time in various threads (historical) {Thank you Sanjeev} and the threads tend to show a pattern where posts with the most "impact" are found in a pattern of spaced (in time) exchanges. There seems to be a lot of noise when discussions are densely packed?

Anyways, there's a reference that proposes an acronym that helps to define (validate) an 'expert':
Transparency about conflicts of interest
Resume that supports expertise
Use of high-quality data to support opinions
Strength and reputation of affiliations
Testimonials from other respected experts in relevant field

I like very much the concepts embodied in this acronym.
I truly am out of my depth in the discussions surrounding high finance, the pandemic & politics.
I know my posts would be more appropriate on a forum related to my areas of expertise; all things nautical & musical.


I'm just a silly liberal artist who mourns the death of truth, and enjoys hobnobbing, virtually, with people who resemble its embers.


Nail #1 in the coffin of trust:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

Nail #2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

Nail #3:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-to-address-the-epidemic-of-lies-in-politics/

We the sheeple of the United States,
in Order to form a more dubious Union,
establish Justice for some,
ensure domestic Disturbances,
provide fences for the common people,
which promote the general Entitlement,
and secure the Blessings of Lipservice
to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this
Constipation for the
United Hates of America.

Over & out
8
Politics / Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Last post by stahleyp on Today at 08:53:05 PM »
Paul, I read your post (it inspired me to pour a 3rd drink) and you've simply shifted the goal posts again.

Now you've moved from "can we even measure the impact of both?" (yes, we can), to your natural fallback position when you're up against a wall: "well that doesn't matter because according to atheists nothing even matters because blah blah jesus god naptime snore zzz"

Sorry to be a little mocking (Again, I'm on old fashioned #3  :o :o) but this is the Nth time you've made this same argument, which at this point has been refuted by, well, half the COBF forum at this point!

If I may be so bold to suggest suspending your disbelief and imagining, pretending, hell, even lying to yourself*...that atheists can have a moral code which is valid across human society, and attempting to argue your same point from that perspective. I suspect the conversations will be more thoughtful for everyone and not devolve into the "blahblahblah" i mentioned above.

*Which brings me back to another point: "lying" can actually be useful and not harmful (or less harmful than the truth) in some cases! It is not arbitrary, which is further reason to actually discriminate on this basis - rather than an arbitrary factor such as sexuality.

Honestly, I'm not trying to move goal posts. You frequently don't answer my questions so I try to word them differently.

Yes, atheists can have a moral code. I have never denied that. I'm simply saying that if you're atheist, why think your moral code is better than Trump's (or Hitler or whoever)? Why do you trust it? Why shouldn't someone follow Trump's moral code over yours? Why do things that are against your best interest if morality is totally subjective? Don't you agree that you and Trump have the same insight into morality?
9
Politics / Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Last post by LC on Today at 08:39:25 PM »
Paul, I read your post (it inspired me to pour a 3rd drink) and you've simply shifted the goal posts again.

Now you've moved from "can we even measure the impact of both?" (yes, we can), to your natural fallback position when you're up against a wall: "well that doesn't matter because according to atheists nothing even matters because blah blah jesus god naptime snore zzz"

Sorry to be a little mocking (Again, I'm on old fashioned #3  :o :o) but this is the Nth time you've made this same argument, which at this point has been refuted by, well, half the COBF forum at this point!

If I may be so bold to suggest suspending your disbelief and imagining, pretending, hell, even lying to yourself*...that atheists can have a moral code which is valid across human society, and attempting to argue your same point from that perspective. I suspect the conversations will be more thoughtful for everyone and not devolve into the "blahblahblah" i mentioned above.

*Which brings me back to another point: "lying" can actually be useful and not harmful (or less harmful than the truth) in some cases! It is not arbitrary, which is further reason to actually discriminate on this basis - rather than an arbitrary factor such as sexuality.
10
General Discussion / Re: Coronavirus
« Last post by Cigarbutt on Today at 08:35:33 PM »
First time I hear the term infodemic but it rings very true.
Jut went though a pretty good article (in German) about Sweden. Some folks in twitter seem to believe that Sweden is the model for how to deal with en epidemic and it is true - Sweden so far has avoided shutdowns and hasnít really descended into a disaster like Italy or NYC.
...
Sweden is interesting on many levels. Yes, the social measures have been applied, in practice, to similar degrees (despite the first level impression) but there are differences. For instance, daycares and schools (age 16 and under) have remained open. Potential bias: the house is full now and i may overestimate the downside to school closures...They have reported higher numbers in relation to a slightly different application of measures but it is interesting to note that this appears to be a (collective) decision made consciously and with a fair degree of consensus. Also, it appears that keeping schools open may have been a good decision because there is good evidence showing that 1-young individuals don't tend to become COVID+ even with exposure which may be related to a relative absence of receptors (specific to entry of CV) on the surface of cells of their respiratory tracts, 2-even when COVID+, young people tend not to become sick and 3-asymptomatic COVID+ kids don't seem to spread very well (for example, there's this reported case of a young (European) person who turned out to be both influenza+ and CV+, who happened to travel places and the person was quite efficient at spreading the flu but not CV).

Sweden shows the potential inter-geography outcomes from different application of measures but there's also the inter-temporal differential outcomes. The 1957 flu in the US occurred in waves (two or three in 1957-8, also came back (maybe a new virus) significantly in 1968). In 1957-8, the US population was about half of what it is now and the estimated excess mortality (numbers vary) came to about 100K for the 1957-8 period and the mortality included younger age groups. At that time, the President and the people were different:
From 1957 (before the fall wave and the vaccine came around the first peak):
"In addition to the steps mentioned above [vaccine distribution related], President Eisenhower has asked for a $500,000 special appropriation from Congress (raised by Congress to $800,000), as well as for authority to transfer about $2,000,000 of public health funds for use in the event of a widespread outbreak. Specifically, the additional $800,000 would be used to develop diagnostic sera to detect the disease, prepare educational material to encourage the use of the vaccine, and to make 10 specialists in epidemic control available for work with state authorities."
Then, the US demographic profile was different and so were the relative absence of comorbidities as well as some cultural differences perhaps.
i guess it's reasonable to affirm that we have improved in some areas but this very statement paints an incomplete picture.
In 1958 (year 2 of the partnerships era), Mr. Buffett was investing in the Sanborn Map Company but he felt that the market was expensive.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10