Senate Impeachment Trial: After opening statements Trump will file Motion to Dismiss. Debate 2 days. Senate votes, Motion to Dismiss passes

[Guest]

Cant believe this is being debated and ooh we need to define sound.

Do we? Really? 

Apparently Ward has better things to do lol and I'm debating trees and noise now in magic forests with no animals.

F**k me.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

2 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Cant believe this is being debated and ooh we need to define sound.

Do we? Really? 

Apparently Ward has better things to do lol and I'm debating trees and noise now in magic forests with no animals.

F**k me.

Time to get a life mate and spend less time on here

[Guest]

Ya think lol? That to me or everyone?

No I'm debating the gold of cochlear reactions to said vibrations 🤣

It's a big oak tree ... that's all you need to know. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

I'm debating trees and noise now in magic forests with no animals.

[Guest]

Well it depends on things making a sound and / or vibrating and impacting the surrounding air. But if no one is in the room at the time, then no, the clock ticking didn't make a sound apparently.

1st grade philosophy nonsense.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

A man lives in a forest for a year. Everyday 10 things 'fall over' and he hears every one, so 3650 things.

Then one day he leaves the forest, and the things that fall over suddenly do so with no sound, because specific HUMAN EARS did not hear them.

Ooooooohhh creepy 🤣

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Time to get a life mate and spend less time on here

You think? I don't wanna keep arguing religion, I like Ward, he's cool, and I'm semi joking here, but I'm arguing philosophy and reason with a guy who believes in virgin births and people coming back from the dead.

Something tells me it's a little pointless and we may not agree ...?

[Guest]

Everything that's ever fallen over in a forest, in the planet's history, made a sound.

But not the one tree in your scenario ... 🤣

It's deep stuff guys. Feel like I'm reading Nietzsche.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

28 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Respect DT

nobody is fooling you mate

and yeah if a bloody tree falls in the forest it makes a big crashing sound 

if you don’t believe me try cutting one down and record the noise

duh

The microphone was specifically designed to capture the "sounds" human ears could perceive. I've designed "microphones" that most certainly would not capture human level "sounds". In fact the human ear is woefully inadequate to the task of perceiving the gamut of vibrations out there. Maybe 5% of the population can really hear 20-20khz 

And @DayTrader I wasn't agreeing with Enthalpic so much as with the science he was quoting. Seems to me you've agreed with him on multiple occasions. Plus I thought it was a good joke, didn't you? 

[Guest]

I don't want to hear the science on some level 1 philosophy shite that I think you are all better than LOL. I made a joke on your tree scenario and didn't even read the rest of your post, and it's now become a debate on the definition of noise and this 'would it make a sound' crap. Yes, it would, it's a tree. Everything ever that's fallen in a forest made a noise, so let's go with the numbers and assume a tree does too.

The fact a human didn't hear it means nothing. The laws of physics and noise and vibration and whatever tell you it would have made a sound. If a clock ticks away in a room, and then you leave the room, does it stop making a noise? It's ludicrous. 

And yes I agree with him all the time, and it was a good joke. But when I leave the room or if no one read it does that mean it was a bad joke? Or it didn't exist? Or we need to define joke?

LOL. I win. Yawn. You need me as f**king president and you know it. Sounds like the USA needs some DT logicbombs.

@Otis11  #greencard

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

15 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

 

It's deep stuff guys. Feel like I'm reading Nietzsche.

You realize that even scientists are doctors of philosophy right?

Want to get weird?  A single molecule has no properties.  For example a single water molecule can't freeze into ice, boil into steam, or form a liquid.  It can't even have a temperature (kinetic energy) as you can't have a velocity without a frame of reference (like a second molecule).

"Emergent properties"

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Enthalpic said:

You realize that even scientists are doctors of philosophy right?

I guess but this is grade 1 philosophy to me. Nietzsche winning in my book at the moment.

2 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

It can't even have a temperature (kinetic energy) as you can't have a velocity without a frame of reference

Agreed that's pretty weird mate. Certainly better than this tree shite.

Anyway, we are distracting Americans from talking their favourite subjects of themselves and impeachment. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

I guess but this is grade 1 philosophy to me. Nietzsche winning in my book at the moment.

 

Einstein loved his thought experiments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_thought_experiments

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Einstein loved his thought experiments

True but he agreed with me about the ludicrous tree. 

Not quite in the 'quantum mechanics' league.

If you said to Einstein ''if a tree falls over in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?'', he would have said ''yes'' and got on with his day.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Guest

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

15 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

True but he agreed with me about the ludicrous tree. 

Not quite in the 'quantum mechanics' league.

If you said to Einstein ''if a tree falls over in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?'', he would have said ''yes'' and got on with his day.

You live in the rational "analog" world like your homeboy* Newton.

Understanding that even vibrations and rotations are quantized is mind blowing.  There is no "in between points" when a molecule is spinning - it jumps from one angle to the next!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational–vibrational_spectroscopy

* Both Newton and Hawking had the same position at Cambridge. Kinda cool.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Enthalpic

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Both Newton and Hawking had the same position at Cambridge.

Dead?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

* Both Newton and Hawking had the same position at Cambridge. Kinda cool.

Yeah I heard that, can't remember specific title, but yeah may as well be ''genius of the era''.

3 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

You live in the rational "analog" world like your homeboy* Newton.

Yep, it's a real nightmare here. He was wrong about loads and didn't achieve much by the age of 24. Loser.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 minutes ago, remake it said:

Dead?

LOL

Lucasian professor

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

42 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

You need me as f**king president and you know it.

We already had one of those. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

but I'm arguing philosophy and reason with a guy who believes in virgin births

I remember trying that argument once in this paternity lawsuit in court.  Worked for me, but the Judge was a woman.  Nah. Oh, well.   Or maybe it was just a nightmare I had when I was 23.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

It's deep stuff guys. Feel like I'm reading Nietzsche.

See?  Those Continent guys are good for stuff after all.  And you want to dump them!

"More bloody furriners!"    [It was in the movie]. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

10 hours ago, DayTrader said:

I'll go out on a limb and say slavery won't come back too, as times change, and so presumably the law did. 

Unfortunately, there are probably more slaves now than at any previous time in history.  And this is especially true with sex slaves. 

[Guest]

@Jan van Eck  - Ok well it's illegal now and wasn't before then. It was normal. And that law was changed yes? And would have been monumental? I just don't get why a law there is so hard to change just because loads is based on something written 150 years ago or whenever it was.

Times change so laws should, that's how I see it. It used to be fine to hang people, chop heads off, beat your wife as long as the stick was a certain width, use kids in the workplace, tons of stuff. And laws are made all the time to reflect society changes. Originally your amendments or constitution or whatever wouldn't have had internet laws etc obviously. So it is easy to make laws but not change old ones, I don't get it mate.

This ain't specific to just US I guess either, just that we are talking impeachment and always about the US. I get it's like this precious thing to you guys, and should be, the original laws etc, but when you have a party that isn't in power making shit up as they go, it's obviously a flawed system in some ways surely? Is it ever even suggested there politically like ''we need to alter some of this'' ?

Edited December 21, 2019 by Guest

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

49 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Is it ever even suggested there politically like ''we need to alter some of this'' ?

I presume you mean the Constitution. Well, no, we won't change a word. Because in the US the Constitution is the sacred document that guides our way of life. We have a word for someone capable of interpreting the original version: Textualist. The late Judge Antonin Scalia was the best example. We basically used the Magna Carta as the framework for our Constitution . . . you weren't using it so we thought we'd borrow it for a bit. The Framers were learned men the likes of which we don't have around now. Most of them owned slaves, some sexual, some not so much. Thomas Jefferson, for example, liked the looks of pretty little Sally Hemings, a slave girl, so much that he fathered six children by her. That did not detract from his leadership; as someone pointed out, times were different. 

Not only was Jefferson a bit of a scamp, but Alexander Hamilton was the son of a prostitute. Nonetheless, he had some great ideas. He and James Madison, and John Jay and Benjamin Franklin (and maybe Jefferson too) wrote a bunch of idealistic propaganda called The Federalist Papers, which were primers to getting the Constitution ratified by the American people. There were 76 of these papers, and they were, to borrow a term, pure gold. Anyway, Alexander Hamilton was wily in the ways of good and not-so-good men. He wanted a very strong executive branch, but made it pretty easy for a charge of high crimes and misdemeanors to be levied against the president in the House of Representatives: to rein him in, if you will. A subsequent trial was to be held in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So, in the unlikely circumstance of an impeachment, the Framers made sure that all three branches of government had a role to play. Impeachment was intended to be taken seriously, not to be used as a political cudgel.

Unfortunately--and I say this as a Republican--Bill Clinton didn't do much to get impeached over (everyone knows the sordid details), but he was a horny, smug bastard and he got impeached by a Republican House of Representatives that hated his guts, and then he was rightly acquitted by a Democratic Senate. It was hard on the country. Everyone in his or her right mind breathed a sigh of relief when it was over. But it wasn't: The Democrats that now rule the House think they're "getting even," though I believe it will blow up in their faces.

To be honest--and saying this makes me feel almost traitorous--this is not a proud time in our democracy. In the United States we now face a dearth of competent leaders in the Democratic Party. If you are an oil and gas person (even if you hate shale), it's hard to find anyone in the Democratic Party who has a lick of sense. This is a long-winded answer to a short question. Like I said before, my verbosity stems from being made to take on the role of Cicero as a pre-pubertal school kid in Western Oklahoma; I talk and think slowly but type like a grand champion.

No, we're not going to change the Constitution: It's near perfect. It's the people busily bending the Constitution who cheapen it.  

[remake it + 288]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Lucasian professor

Right you are - Star Wars.