Rich
@5317006.bsky.social
Yorkshireman, retired, MAMIL, prefers countryside to city, LGBT+ally, bit of a lefty. Britain needs to rejoin the EU. 😁
Have you forgotten already?
November 15, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Have you forgotten already?
Stop the bulshit.
It takes two to tango.
Either budget could have been agreed, for the shut down to have ended.
You can't blame Demoprats without also blaming Republiclowns.
It takes two to tango.
Either budget could have been agreed, for the shut down to have ended.
You can't blame Demoprats without also blaming Republiclowns.
October 6, 2025 at 12:00 PM
Stop the bulshit.
It takes two to tango.
Either budget could have been agreed, for the shut down to have ended.
You can't blame Demoprats without also blaming Republiclowns.
It takes two to tango.
Either budget could have been agreed, for the shut down to have ended.
You can't blame Demoprats without also blaming Republiclowns.
October 3, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Yes I agree that it is highly unlikely that the exact same thing that has happened would happen AGAIN by chance. I am all for more analysis, but I see no need to speculate about intelligent intervention of any kind.
Here's a note that I made some time ago. It partly explains my position.
Here's a note that I made some time ago. It partly explains my position.
September 9, 2025 at 4:45 PM
Yes I agree that it is highly unlikely that the exact same thing that has happened would happen AGAIN by chance. I am all for more analysis, but I see no need to speculate about intelligent intervention of any kind.
Here's a note that I made some time ago. It partly explains my position.
Here's a note that I made some time ago. It partly explains my position.
Apart from anything else, using probability in that way, to conclude the existence of God, you necessarily presuppose your own conclusion.
Your reasoning is circular.
You're welcome.
Your reasoning is circular.
You're welcome.
August 15, 2025 at 7:11 PM
Apart from anything else, using probability in that way, to conclude the existence of God, you necessarily presuppose your own conclusion.
Your reasoning is circular.
You're welcome.
Your reasoning is circular.
You're welcome.
Misunderstandings are common, as are insults. But I try not to insult people. You are a breath of fresh air too.
August 5, 2025 at 4:10 PM
Misunderstandings are common, as are insults. But I try not to insult people. You are a breath of fresh air too.
Here it is for the fourth time.
Deal with it and stop avoiding reality.
Deal with it and stop avoiding reality.
July 19, 2025 at 9:13 PM
Here it is for the fourth time.
Deal with it and stop avoiding reality.
Deal with it and stop avoiding reality.
Again you fail to show unlikelihood without imagining a pre-set target.
When will you begin to understand that your argument is circular.
My note should have made it easy for you to understand. Tell me: what part of my note do you not understand. Here it is again
When will you begin to understand that your argument is circular.
My note should have made it easy for you to understand. Tell me: what part of my note do you not understand. Here it is again
July 19, 2025 at 9:07 PM
Again you fail to show unlikelihood without imagining a pre-set target.
When will you begin to understand that your argument is circular.
My note should have made it easy for you to understand. Tell me: what part of my note do you not understand. Here it is again
When will you begin to understand that your argument is circular.
My note should have made it easy for you to understand. Tell me: what part of my note do you not understand. Here it is again
Supported by numbers that are so incredibly huge they make the lottery look like a reasonable gamble...but only if you presuppose your conclusion. There, fixed it for you.
I’ve already explained this common error, and you have yet to address my explanation.
Here it is again.
I’ve already explained this common error, and you have yet to address my explanation.
Here it is again.
July 13, 2025 at 5:44 PM
Supported by numbers that are so incredibly huge they make the lottery look like a reasonable gamble...but only if you presuppose your conclusion. There, fixed it for you.
I’ve already explained this common error, and you have yet to address my explanation.
Here it is again.
I’ve already explained this common error, and you have yet to address my explanation.
Here it is again.
Your appeal to (dubious) authority, logical fallacy is dismissed.
Fred also believed that the universe was static (not expanding) and that quasars were ejected from nearby galaxies. Do you have those quotes close to hand too?
Here's an ACTUAL, fallacy free argument.
Enjoy. :)
Fred also believed that the universe was static (not expanding) and that quasars were ejected from nearby galaxies. Do you have those quotes close to hand too?
Here's an ACTUAL, fallacy free argument.
Enjoy. :)
July 11, 2025 at 7:56 AM
Your appeal to (dubious) authority, logical fallacy is dismissed.
Fred also believed that the universe was static (not expanding) and that quasars were ejected from nearby galaxies. Do you have those quotes close to hand too?
Here's an ACTUAL, fallacy free argument.
Enjoy. :)
Fred also believed that the universe was static (not expanding) and that quasars were ejected from nearby galaxies. Do you have those quotes close to hand too?
Here's an ACTUAL, fallacy free argument.
Enjoy. :)
Thank you.
Here it is again in a single picture.
Here it is again in a single picture.
July 4, 2025 at 6:20 PM
Thank you.
Here it is again in a single picture.
Here it is again in a single picture.
It turns out we HAVE had the conversation, and you didn't delete your posts.
July 4, 2025 at 6:10 PM
It turns out we HAVE had the conversation, and you didn't delete your posts.
Whatever your point was, it is moot. You were originally asked how you KNOW (that the rules were made by God), so what you THINK doesn't meet the requirements.
Not moving on, until either, you prove me wrong, or accept that you can't prove me wrong.
Not moving on, until either, you prove me wrong, or accept that you can't prove me wrong.
June 11, 2025 at 7:30 PM
Whatever your point was, it is moot. You were originally asked how you KNOW (that the rules were made by God), so what you THINK doesn't meet the requirements.
Not moving on, until either, you prove me wrong, or accept that you can't prove me wrong.
Not moving on, until either, you prove me wrong, or accept that you can't prove me wrong.
LOL. I’ve been using “IN” since you expressed your preference, 3 days ago. But I am delighted that you have eventually caught up, and that we are finally on the same page.
1/2
1/2
June 5, 2025 at 11:13 AM
LOL. I’ve been using “IN” since you expressed your preference, 3 days ago. But I am delighted that you have eventually caught up, and that we are finally on the same page.
1/2
1/2
Here (and it wasn't very far back in our conversation).
Your 1st sentence means: “Yes, but not if I got away with it...bla bla bla...”
You have already accepted the reality that there are social consequences to social actions. This is the informal social contract.
Your 1st sentence means: “Yes, but not if I got away with it...bla bla bla...”
You have already accepted the reality that there are social consequences to social actions. This is the informal social contract.
June 1, 2025 at 11:29 AM
Here (and it wasn't very far back in our conversation).
Your 1st sentence means: “Yes, but not if I got away with it...bla bla bla...”
You have already accepted the reality that there are social consequences to social actions. This is the informal social contract.
Your 1st sentence means: “Yes, but not if I got away with it...bla bla bla...”
You have already accepted the reality that there are social consequences to social actions. This is the informal social contract.
Your personal incredulity won't allow you to accept this fact, but here is a note about probability that explains why your argument is circular.
Any questions?
Any questions?
May 5, 2025 at 10:47 AM
Your personal incredulity won't allow you to accept this fact, but here is a note about probability that explains why your argument is circular.
Any questions?
Any questions?
Would you like to move on to one of your other God claims now?
We can see whether or not they too, are baseless.
We can see whether or not they too, are baseless.
May 3, 2025 at 10:54 AM
Would you like to move on to one of your other God claims now?
We can see whether or not they too, are baseless.
We can see whether or not they too, are baseless.
Again, you misuse probability and confuse the likelihood of something that has already happened, by chance, happening again. Yours is actually a circular argument, but personal incredulity won't allow you to accept the fact.
You don't understand probability, here is a resource that explains it.
You don't understand probability, here is a resource that explains it.
May 1, 2025 at 5:40 PM
Again, you misuse probability and confuse the likelihood of something that has already happened, by chance, happening again. Yours is actually a circular argument, but personal incredulity won't allow you to accept the fact.
You don't understand probability, here is a resource that explains it.
You don't understand probability, here is a resource that explains it.
Sure don't.
That's not about probability, that's an argument from personal incredulity logical fallacy.
You just preselected "flipping 20 million coins and all landing on an edge etc." as an unlikely outcome. For your analogy to work: who preselected humanity?
Here's how probability works.
That's not about probability, that's an argument from personal incredulity logical fallacy.
You just preselected "flipping 20 million coins and all landing on an edge etc." as an unlikely outcome. For your analogy to work: who preselected humanity?
Here's how probability works.
April 25, 2025 at 7:44 AM
Sure don't.
That's not about probability, that's an argument from personal incredulity logical fallacy.
You just preselected "flipping 20 million coins and all landing on an edge etc." as an unlikely outcome. For your analogy to work: who preselected humanity?
Here's how probability works.
That's not about probability, that's an argument from personal incredulity logical fallacy.
You just preselected "flipping 20 million coins and all landing on an edge etc." as an unlikely outcome. For your analogy to work: who preselected humanity?
Here's how probability works.
You ARE confused.
YOUR set and subsets. You allege that there is a set of facts, with subsets of accessibility and inaccessibility.
YOUR set and subsets. You allege that there is a set of facts, with subsets of accessibility and inaccessibility.
March 26, 2025 at 6:45 PM
You ARE confused.
YOUR set and subsets. You allege that there is a set of facts, with subsets of accessibility and inaccessibility.
YOUR set and subsets. You allege that there is a set of facts, with subsets of accessibility and inaccessibility.
Aaaand! Someone creates a better idiot.
It's YOUR subset, not mine. This is something that YOU said.
You love your false analogies don't you.
Your desperation is clouding your brain.
It's YOUR subset, not mine. This is something that YOU said.
You love your false analogies don't you.
Your desperation is clouding your brain.
March 26, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Aaaand! Someone creates a better idiot.
It's YOUR subset, not mine. This is something that YOU said.
You love your false analogies don't you.
Your desperation is clouding your brain.
It's YOUR subset, not mine. This is something that YOU said.
You love your false analogies don't you.
Your desperation is clouding your brain.
Your analogy is a hopeless oversimplification.
March 25, 2025 at 5:15 PM
Your analogy is a hopeless oversimplification.
No that wasn't my argument at all.
My note does not say that.
Perhaps you should read my note again, and tell me where you think it does say that. To make it easier for you, here is the note again.
My note does not say that.
Perhaps you should read my note again, and tell me where you think it does say that. To make it easier for you, here is the note again.
March 23, 2025 at 8:38 PM
No that wasn't my argument at all.
My note does not say that.
Perhaps you should read my note again, and tell me where you think it does say that. To make it easier for you, here is the note again.
My note does not say that.
Perhaps you should read my note again, and tell me where you think it does say that. To make it easier for you, here is the note again.