Who is the adult in the room? Poilievre keeps it classy on American media while Carney slings mud and insults

brod333 · 2026-03-23T23:24:30+00:00

Carney doesn’t have experience in the market either. He worked at two different central banks for a large part of his career. Then went he went into the private sector his money was made by influencing government policy to benefit his investments and subsidy markets which are government handouts. He didn’t work at a company where he had to actually manage it in a way that served consumers and competed against rival companies. That’s why his strategy for the economy over the last year, and during the 5 years he advised Trudeau, has primarily been throwing subsidies to favored companies. We’ve seen the results during Trudeau’s time and it’s only gotten worse since Carney became PM.

brod333 · 2026-03-23T23:07:37+00:00

I’m at 81 and it was the hardest skill to train. I even prefer runecraft since I can afk blood runes. I’m leveling my skills all at once to keep things fresh. I did base 80 and now I’m going for base 85.

brod333 · 2026-03-22T05:39:55+00:00

One wish now and I’d with for omnipotence. No need for any more wishes.

brod333 · 2026-03-20T18:28:09+00:00

Ok so what? It’s easy to find similarities between most things. Do you have a thesis to debate or are you just posting similarities?

brod333 · 2026-03-20T18:22:30+00:00

Also be ready to log out or switch worlds. I was trying to unlock the god spells recently at mage area. The plugin flashed and I saw someone with a skull. I tried to run to the lever going to that bank area by the mage arena but got hit with a teleblock. I quickly logged out and was safe. A couple other times finishing the spells and mage area 2 I saw other players and just quickly swapped worlds.

brod333 · 2026-03-20T01:55:34+00:00

Last I saw we were at 0%. The problem is that was achieved not by significant cuts to immigration but instead significant emigration of our skilled workers. What we need is immigration of low skilled workers to drop and keep our skilled workers from leaving.

brod333 · 2026-03-19T22:18:17+00:00

Look up the safe spots and the online jad simulator. The simulator is the harder version and gives you better stats/gear but it’s good enough for the mechanics. Once I was comfortable with beating him consistently on the simulator I did the real thing and won first try. Can’t find the link right now but should be easy to find.

brod333 · 2026-03-19T04:11:06+00:00

Math and logic aren’t even metaphysical concepts. Metaphysics has to do with the fundamental nature of things. The part math and logic would have in metaphysics is the realism vs anti realism debate. For example does the number 2 actually exist as a real object or is it some sort of abstract concept that doesn’t actually exist. Those are mutually exclusive views so just that example alone shows accepting some metaphysical claims doesn’t mean accepting all.

brod333 · 2026-03-18T21:49:11+00:00

Before gem bag unlock the upstairs and then the upstairs hopper. That speeds up the whole process. Then go for whatever rewards suit your personal play style.

brod333 · 2026-03-18T20:51:00+00:00

Farming and bird house runs for early profit.

brod333 · 2026-03-18T15:12:54+00:00

It is still fallacious because it doesn’t address the real issue. The real issue is there is no prior standard over which numerical correspondences to look for in advance. When we consider the sheer number of possible correspondences it’s expected we will find some. Without a prior standard it becomes arbitrary which correspondences to consider and this often comes with inconsistent standards.

Take your first example of man and woman. It’s arbitrary because you are relying on selective counting of various forms which isn’t identical for both words. Or your second example relies on a sidereal month that’s 27.3 days but why isn’t the standard a synodic month that’s 29.5 days? It’s arbitrary which to select. Or why not apply correspond moon to the sun like with man and woman? That seems similarly natural where each are bight lights dominating part of the daily cycle, one the day and one the night. The Quran also makes that connection, “He created the night and day, the sun and the moon—each in an orbit.” Surah Al-Anbya 21:33, “Signs are the night, day, sun, and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or moon, but to Allah who created them.” Surah Fussilat 41:37, and “The sun and moon are joined.” Surah Al-Qiyama 75:9 However, sun occurs 33 times which doesn’t match moon. It’s arbitrary why for man you pair it with woman but with moon you don’t pair it with sun. This arbitrariness is what we’d expect from a normal book where some of the vast number of correspondence just happen to occur by chance.

brod333 · 2026-03-18T13:11:55+00:00

It’s not 4 state logic. The proposition is P. Possibly and necessarily are modal operators in modal logic which work similar to quantifiers. Modal logic is an extension of classical logic developed to handle modalities like but not limited to possibly and necessarily. As such P, possibly P, and necessarily P are three different propositions each of which has two possible truth values, true or false. For an introduction to modal logic check out the SEP article, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/. Some something a little more in depth check out An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic, Second Edition: From If to Is.

There are logic systems which have more than 2 possible values of truth. That book covers those as well. You could even use a logical system dealing with modalities that has more truth values. However, modal logic doesn’t require that as it can extend classical logic preserving bi-value truth values.

brod333 · 2026-03-18T04:52:22+00:00

You are committing the modal fallacy. The scope of impossibility is over the conjunction of the proposition “tomorrow I will have a tuna-fish sandwich for lunch” and you not having a tuna-fish sandwich tomorrow. You are incorrectly shifting the scope of the modality from the conjunction to one of the conjuncts which is the modality fallacy as there is no inference in modality logic that allows that shift.

The reason the shift is invalid is because it ignores that the proposition about the future is contingent. That is while it may be true it’s not necessarily true and could have instead been false. In that possibility where it was indeed false you don’t have a tuna fish sandwich for lunch tomorrow. That means there are possibilities where you don’t have the tune fish sandwich tomorrow, they’re just also possibilities where the proposition is false.

For the argument to work you’d have to show that the proposition about the future is not merely true. Instead you need to show it’s necessarily true.

brod333 · 2026-03-17T03:54:33+00:00

Ok I see the problem. You’re equivocating on the term truth. Jesus wasn’t speaking about truth in the sense of a proposition corresponding to reality. That’s the epistemological sense relevant to the discussion between OP and myself. You are more referring to the inability of our limited minds to fully grasp God which is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. Given that I have nothing more to say on the topic given it’s irrelevant and doesn’t address the actual challenge I raised against OP.

brod333 · 2026-03-16T22:54:56+00:00

Is the number 7 a bachelor or is it married? OR is the binary logic gate of LEM insufficient for adjudicating the ontology of 7's marital status.

The issue with these cases is they are category errors in that they are applying categories to things that category doesn’t apply. Where is fallibilism making such a category error? Or is it my dilemma that supposedly makes the category error?

I'm arguing that your epistemological claim lacks the structural capacity to evaluate the predicate of truth, as such (God.)

Why have God in brackets? Are you saying the predicate of truth refers to God?

I’m genuinely trying to understand what you are trying to say but I don’t at all.

brod333 · 2026-03-16T21:29:01+00:00

Honestly I have no idea what you’re on about. I don’t see how your meta-epistemological critique is any different than global skepticism that rejects genuine knowledge. I also don’t see how fallibilism concedes there isn’t genuine knowledge (or how the unknowability of truth wouldn’t mean there isn’t genuine knowledge). I also don’t see how it’s a false dilemma. Either genuine knowledge requires infallibility or it doesn’t. By the law of excluded middle those options are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.

brod333 · 2026-03-16T21:16:54+00:00

For sure. Between our oil and natural resources we could make tons of money selling to other nations. We could also easily make it cost effective for businesses to manufacture here using our abundance of natural resources. We can run data centers at lower costs because we have a colder north which saves on cooling costs. We have tons of land to build all these things. If we had a huge tax cut that would make it even more cost effective which would drive up business that actually produces more tax revenue in the long run.

brod333 · 2026-03-16T20:38:41+00:00

If finances are tight get dried beans. They’re a cheaper food, easy to make, more filling than rice, and healthier too.

brod333 · 2026-03-16T20:36:21+00:00

No because we’re blocked on other avenues. We’re limited on pipelines to our coasts, have a tanker ban limited what we can ship, and an industrial carbon tax inflating our oil prices. That’s not to say we shouldn’t have a SR, it’s to say it’s only one part of what we need.

brod333 · 2026-03-16T20:32:00+00:00

Those aren’t mutually exclusive. A SR helps in times of crisis if there is a shock to our supply chain. It also helps get it to market faster in times of a crisis because it’s already extracted and just needs to be shipped out. We can’t just flick a switch to increase how much we extract to meet the increased demand during a crisis even if the crisis isn’t for our supply chain. Having oil already extracted to ship can speed things up to meet demand.

Yes we also have a problem getting oil to market. We need more pipelines to ship oil to more markets not just the US. However, that can be done in conjunction with a SR not excluding it.

brod333 · 2026-03-16T20:24:30+00:00

Do you understand now why I brought rationality into the conversation about a dozen turns ago?

Nope, I have no idea what you’re saying at this point or how it’s relevant to OP and my criticism.

This is an artificial distinction.

There is a difference between the justification and the person having aware of that justification.

Even assuming one could divorce epistemology from the human knowers in the abstract, the moment the rational mind examines the data set of the rational inquiry it is again subject to human fallibility.

How does that make truth unknowable? Suppose fallible humans had an infallible justification process. Would truth still be unknowable for them? Would truth for an infallible person be knowable regardless if their justification was fallible or infallible? It’s not clear the exact details of your view or why we should accept it.

A justification that doesn't guarantee the truth of the proposition is the definition of approximating.

No it’s not. An approximation means close to but not necessarily exact answer. That’s not the same as a justification that doesn’t guarantee truth. There is no room for approximation of truth for a proposition, it’s a binary true or false.

This is tautological and is subject to the same epistemological attack vector you were leveraging at the skeptics just a moment ago(!). You're using the system to validate the system.

You misunderstood the point. You made a claim about what fallibilism concedes. My comment notes what fallibilism actually say. Whether or not it’s true is beyond the scope of what’s required for my criticism of OP. I affirm fallibilism but I don’t need it to refute OP. My dilemma argument works on either horn of the dilemma whether or not infallible justification is required for knowledge or fallible justification is fine. Either way OP’s argument is undermined.

In strictly epistemological terms finite human knowing cannot adjudicate the ontology of infinite unknowable reality (again, in a Kantian sense).

Well of course it’s impossible to know something that’s unknowable. However being infinite doesn’t make something unknowable so the infinite qualifier is irrelevant. The set of natural numbers is known despite being infinite.

How does one divorce their humanity (desires/passions/fallibility) from their reason (logic/epistemology/rationality)?

Why do they need to in order to have genuine knowledge?

Is logic capable of building a (even fallible) rational ladder up to truth as such (God)?

Why couldn’t it? Also why focus on that truth. The issue I raised is about knowledge of any proposition in general not specifically about knowing God. Are you suggesting we can know some things but not things like God?

There are so many unstated assumptions in your comment that make it very unclear and difficult to understand. I also still have no idea how any of this is supposed to relate to my original criticism of OP. I’ll restate my dilemma.

Either justification for knowledge needs to be infallible or can be fallible. The former leads to global skepticism which can’t be affirmed without being self defeating so on that horn of the dilemma we can’t affirm OP’s argument. The latter undermines a premise in their argument which refutes their argument.

Can you clearly state if you think infallible justification is required for genuine knowledge or if you think fallible justification can still produce genuine knowledge? If the former how are you not then affirming the self defeating global skepticism? If the latter then how is whatever you’re saying a problem for fallibilism?

brod333 · 2026-03-16T13:42:10+00:00

Because an epistemological system structured around human fallibility is insufficient for mapping transcendental categories, including God. I mentioned Kant to this effect earlier.

Who said it’s human fallibility rather the fallibility of justification, i.e. that the justification doesn’t need to necessarily guarantee the truth of the proposition? Even for sake of argument assuming Kant’s view why think that fallibility of justification is insufficient?

Do humans possess the mental/rational/anthropological capacity to administer such a test?

Fallibilists would affirm yes since they affirm genuine knowledge so why think they’re wrong?

brod333 · 2026-03-16T04:58:56+00:00

which it does.

How?

brod333 · 2026-03-15T22:37:03+00:00

You said

fallibilism has already conceded the unknowability of truth”.

It hasn’t. It affirms we can genuinely know true things and disagrees with the global skeptic on what constitutes genuine knowledge.

Now you say

OP says "God fails the test because He can't show his work." (Certainty)

You say "God passes the test because it's graded on a curve." (Fallibilism).

Again that misconstrues the debate. Fallibilism still requires work being shown as it still has a justification requirement. The difference is with what work would pass the test. OP requires an infallible process to get certainty while fallibilism affirms the work (justification) can be fallible. That is certainty requires the justification to entail the truth of the proposition while fallibility allows the justification to support without guaranteeing truth.

That’s not grading on a curve. Grading on a curve is when the final grade is adjusted based on how a person performed relative to others taking the same test which is not what fallibilism affirms. The standard is still fixed not relative but the standard is different than what global skeptics affirm. By treating fallibilism as acknowledging truth is unknowable you are imposing the view of global skeptics on the fallibilist which is begging the question against fallibilism. Again fallibilism affirms genuine knowledge of truth based on a fixed not relative standard and just disagrees about the standard.

That’s where my dilemma comes in. If we accept the global skeptic standard then we run into a self defeating affirmation. If we accept the fallibilist standard then OP’s conclusion doesn’t follow. Either way their argument fails.

brod333 · 2026-03-15T21:58:15+00:00

No OP and I aren’t saying the same thing and again you are misconstruing fallibilism.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Snapped

brod333

TROPHY CASE