If someone said, "Yeah if there was no one else around, I would shoot that guy." would you put him in charge of watching the person he would shoot?

RFK is anti gun.

That and if they define him as far right, it shifts the Overton Window far left.

It shows that he is pro gun control and will be in charge of an agency that is attempting back door gun control.

Well at least he isn't a republican representative.

Now we're just getting gun control by way of the CDC.

For anyone not paying attention, from a 2023 interview:

The Democratic presidential candidate did, however, express a position that is more in lockstep with the party whose nomination he’s seeking.

Kennedy said that he would get behind a bipartisan assault weapons ban, which the overwhelming majority of Democrats support, but has little chance of getting through Capitol Hill given widespread GOP opposition.

“If we can get a consensus on it, if Republicans and Democrats agree to it and it passes Congress, I would sign it,” he said.

Of she hopes that we will never find peace, she wants to remain in this country. For this country to have peace, she and all of her kind and all of her kinds defenders must be physically removed.

So Trump is continuing his campaign to remove as many non-neocons from the legislature as possible. Yay, self inflicted dem majority. So much winning.

I bet this faggot believes in AGW. He consumes more energy in a year than I will in a lifetime.

This is going to radicalize Elon. He is going to run up against unfireable diversity hires, and unfireable diversity hires are an immovable object.

There is a video I saw recently where someone created a text interface for the LLMs to play Minecraft. They did poorly, but it was interesting none the less.

Why should that be any different? Everyone knows that philosophers are fartsniffing faggots, why should their treatment of paradoxes be considered valid?

would also add that paradoxes, as they are used in philosphy, are generally figurative and do not necessarily prove or disprove anything,

They are not used that way in physics. For example, the Twin "Paradox" and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe are "paradoxes" but really they just mean the theory was flawed and needed refining.

Newton was obsessed with turning lead into gold, should I accept his alchemical treatises too?

I reject your argumentum ad verecundiam.

Every single one of those took some variation of the Book of Genesis as, well, gospel.

Are you trying to claim that reality is some ineffable thing that cannot be measured? That it is impossible to make predictions? That it is impossible to improve those predictions?

Or are you trying to claim that the universe does not operate on simple laws that are endlessly repeated?

Theory is a description. Each step towards the theory of everything, things get simpler, if more high energy. It is the same few laws repeated over and over again at smaller and larger scales. That is not abstraction, that is the opposite of abstraction. You were bringing up Conway's game of life the other day, so you should understand how simple laws can give rise to apparent complexity. If you know the state of the universe at a given point, you can calculate the state of the universe at any point in the future or the past. We are not there yet, but we will be, provided libertarian don't destroy all science funding or democrats give it all to the niggers.

It's only when you zoom out, and away from first principles that you get unsolved complicated crap like the Navier-Stokes equations.

creatio ex nihilo?

If you are referring to the big bang, science makes no claim to know what happens before the universe passed the Chandrasekhar limit, but the mass was obviously already there.

Only religious nutjobs like you claim that dishonor. Who or What created your god?

I didn't claim that at all. I claimed that a smaller universe can describe the processes that make it work. However even your strawman is incorrect, because a smaller system can simulate a larger system, it just can't do it as fast as the larger system.

It's rightfully ignored because it is wrong. The proof is that the universe exists. Any paradox is equivalent to 1 = 0, which means if a paradox exists then one could exploit whatever system that contains it to destroy matter and eventually the universe.

You are confusing the information capacity of the universe with it's laws. A larger universe can simulate a smaller universe, even if it has identical laws.

you are attempting to map a theory onto reality which will never map perfectly,

That is false, because reality exists. Just because our descriptions are inadequate right now does not mean they will always be so.

I knew you were gonna come by with bullshit again. You are like the liberal newscaster saying "Hindenburg's (sic) Uncertainty Principle is why we can't accurately predict election results."

First it is Gödel's incompleteness theorems, not "Goodell's" theorem. Second it only applies to first order logical systems. Third the incompleteness theorem only says that a theory cannot prove itself. Any political theory is so far removed from ZFC that you pretending like it means anything in the realm of political frameworks is probably the most smooth brain thing I will read this entire year. It's like saying that you cannot use Newton's laws to calculate ballistics because the Standard Model cannot account for CP-symmetry breaking.

There are no paradoxes. If your system has a paradox it is false.

In order for a replacement for the republican party to occur, the republican party must be destroyed. You aren't gonna destroy them by voting for them.

Stop voting for evil, and you might actually get some good.

The simple math is you voting for republican puts people like Trump, Nixon, Regan, McConnell, and Graham into power.

There are only two good republicans that I know of, Rand Paul, and Thomas Massie. That is 2 out of 270 republicans in Congress and the Presidency. Less than 1% of republicans are worth a damn. There is your simple math.

You get what you vote for. You voted for the lesser evil, you get evil.

The House is more important than the USDA. It's more important than any agency except perhaps ICE and DoD.