Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You do understand that this theory is batshit crazy right?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Just in from 20 minutes ago. A european soccer player dies on field just 24 hours after getting vaccinated.
He didn’t die, he was taken off the field in a stretcher and is now stabilized.
Do you have any evidence that the collapse and the vaccination are connected, or did you just put that out there figuring some people will be so lazy that they won’t ask resulting in the successful spread of disinformation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I wonder why it only benefits one side.
Because of the vast majority of the nonsense and brazen hypocrisy comes from the right. When you have one side focusing on infrastructure and COVID relief, and the other side focusing on making it harder for people to vote, making it easier to overturn people’s votes, “auditing” the previous election 8 months out, and worshiping the former president, it turns out the latter party will attract more negative coverage. Who knew?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
What incentive did Ukraine have to “announce” an investigation. None.
They were in the middle of a war and their military aid was being withheld. Zelensky had also been asking for a meeting at the White House as a show of US support for Ukraine against Russia, something Ukraine valued very much yet only Trump could give them.
You don’t think these give Ukraine incentive?
So at the very best it’s a request for an investigation into corruption. Don’t see what’s wrong with that.
Because you are blatantly ignoring everything that is.
These points have already been made in this thread but perhaps you haven’t read through it, so I’ll list them again. In this example we have:
- A US president asking a foreign nation to investigate his political opponent
- No legitimate predicate for the investigation
- The request for this investigation focusing more on the announcement of the investigation than the investigation itself
- The campaign for this investigation being led not by the justice department, but by the presidents personal attorney
- Foreign aid withheld until this request was satisfied
- All of this done without the knowledge of anyone in the US government
- The aid resumed and the entire episode covered up once the story became public.
Not one of these things would have been acceptable to you if this were Obama, Hillary, or Biden. But Trump does it so it’s ok. And you guys call us hypocrites? Orangeman bad. The projection is staggering.
And since you’re really into this corruption excuse, can you please give me one example of Trump fighting back against corruption anywhere, ever? Occam’s razor makes this very clear to anyone who actually cares about reality.
Oh so you’re at Zelensky’s advisors. I have Zelensky saying there was no blackmail. So who should we believe. An advisor or the President himself?
We believe the person who doesn’t have motivation to lie. That’s common sense.
Just ask yourself, if Ukraine was being blackmailed and Zelensky publicly admitted it… what would have happened? You don’t think this would have made headlines world wide? You don’t think Trump would have lost his shit and taken it out on Ukraine in every way he could think of? Ukraine needs the US, there was no upside to admitting this and huge downsides. To expect that Zelensky would have admitted it is ludicrous.
Meanwhile, Navikov has no incentive whatsoever to lie about this. And when Cuomo asked him “why are you the only one going on the record about what happened” his answer was simple… “because I’m the only one involved who is no longer in government”.
This isn’t complicated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ukrainians knew the “gun wasn’t loaded” from the beginning
Wow, how absurd. So to be clear, your position is that the president of the United States is a nobody to foreign countries like Ukraine?
What’s more absurd, is that this claim is being made in the face of an actual Ukrainian ( the only one who has spoken about it publicly so far) who was an advisor to Zelensky at the time while this was happening saying everything I’m saying. But why let facts get in the way right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s really interesting the little hoops these guys are jumping through in order to not address the key central points.
I don’t know if it’s more fascinating or frustrating. They’re not that stupid, so it’s just a matter of what is it exactly that has them contorting themselves and do they realize it? I don’t know, and at this point I’m pessimistic that we will ever find out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I don't understand why you keep harping on this. It is genuinely confusing. I thought you were actually wishing my family well. Foes it have a double meaning I am unaware of?
So when I said “nice family you have there, shame if something were to happen to them”… you hear that and your mind thinks “how nice of him to wish my family well”
Really?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Another false equivalency. If you wanted to murder someone, you have the capacity to murder that someone even if you fail. Here you do not have the capacity to stop the funds because of the law.
The goal wasn’t to stop the funds, it was to get Ukraine to *announce* that they were investigating the Biden’s. Why is that so difficult?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You mean Hillary's ties to Russian disinformation campaigns and the "pee tape"?
Calling something disinformation doesn’t make it so. But I noticed you ignored the entire point of everything I said, which isn’t the least bit surprising. It’s pretty much your MO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
That's pretty fucked up to accept a job for that reason. It should be based on merit. Not because you are promising them they can affect U.S. policy.How dare Biden do that sort of quid pro quo.
I was questioning whether you were being serious, thank you for making it clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The point wasn't clear to me. That means if this was an attempt at that sort of thing, it likely flew over the Ukrainian leader's head as well. They shouldn't be that subtle.
If you actually read the article you would know that is is factually false. Ukraine’s leaders understood very well what this is about.
Is it just because he is a republican that you think his words mean, precisely the opposite of what he says? Like some sort of weird twisting of words?When JFK said the only thing to fear is fear itself, was he secretly saying we should be fearful of everything?If not, than how do you conclusively say what statements mean the opposite, of what is said?
Do you really believe I was wishing your family well when I talked about the shame it would be if something were to happen to them?
I don't think a single person changed their mind, merely because an bbn investigation was taking place. People vote based on which candidate most closely aligns with their ideology.
Nonsense, and the polls reflected this. Hillary’s problem was that she was untrustworthy. Learning that she was under an FBI investigation did not help.
He likely used it, because he didn't want any crooked politicians to ruin the investigation by trying to cook up evidence.
And I was just wishing your family well. Look, I said “shame”, shame is a bad thing so I couldn’t have meant it would have been good. That’s just a weird twisting of my words.
But seriously, read post 6 in this thread. He laid it all out perfectly so there’s no reason for me to repeat the context here, which is the very thing that makes this so freaking obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The article helped inform me of the precarious position Ukraine was in. Maybe that is why they hired Biden's son to start with.
Ukraine didn’t hire Biden’s son, a private energy company in Ukraine did, and yes of course they wanted the influence they thought they could get out of him, that’s how all these businesses operate. None of this has anything to do with the point of that article or why it matters to the point of this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Investigating a potential case of corruption is blatantly inappropriate?
No, a president asking for his political opponent to be investigated is blatantly inappropriate.
Turns out that when you restate someone else’s comment and leave out the important part, it’s easy to make their statement sound dumb.
But back to the point; Why is this so difficult for you guys? If Obama in 2012 called China and asked them to investigate Mitt Romney would you really have a hard time understanding why that is at the very least, inappropriate?
Do you not think that whether or not some corruption happened is important to know when that potentially corrupt person could be running the country? Wasn't that the whole point of that worthless Russia trial? To see if there was any collusion of our president?
That’s why we have a justice department, and a free press.
So obviously, some sort of favor was needed to start the investigation. That favor would be an improved relationship (misunderstandings being put aside).
This just isn’t serious. First of all, a private citizen getting a job at a private company is of no interest to the United States. Second, the misunderstandings Rudy was talking about were the foreign aid that Trump stopped, and the meeting at the White House Ukraine was asking for that Trump was not responding to. These were very serious things for Ukraine.
Once again, if you ignore everything important of course you’ll end up with nothing important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I would be more concerned he said something like "hey we are faking some evidence and want a dishonest investigator". It looks like he said the opposite of those things though.
Wylted, that’s a nice family you have there, would be a real shame if something were to happen to them.
This is what I heard one prosecutor describe as a false exculpatory. Make your point clear, but use the right words so that if they are ever recorded you can use them to cast doubt on the jury. This is how mobsters talk because they know the authorities could always be listening, to a certain extent it’s common sense which is why I have a tough time taking this response seriously. Are you suggesting that if they didn’t state their intentions explicitly then it’s unreasonable to conclude said intentions?
You are also forgetting that Rudy didn’t actually ask for the investigation, he asked for an *announcement* of an investigation. There is no way to spin that. If the truth was the goal, the public wouldn’t need to know about it unless something was found. But we’re all know the political damage that would have been done if an investigation was announced. Just ask Hillary.
He said evidence actually exists and that the honest person put in charge will find it.
“Honest” is the false exculpatory. The word has no place in this sentence of this were an ethical request. Honesty in an investigation is presumed unless you have reason to believe it should not be, in which case that further discussion on that is needed. There was none. Rudy used that word so that people like yourself would read it and go “look, he said honest”. Clearly it works.
I don't really know anything outside of what OP shared about this, but my guess is it is Trump doing what he does, being imprecise with his words, and people that hate him, giving those words the least charitable interpretation possible.
The more context you look at the worse it gets. But if you want a very simple example here’s an article recapping Igor Navikov’s recent interview on CNN. Novikov was an advisor to President Zelensky and he spells out how the Ukrainians felt about being extorted by Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The money was given to Ukraine and was going to be given because it was written into the budget by Congress. How are you supposed to have a quid pro quo if there isn’t leverage in the first place.
So if I go into a store with a handgun that’s not loaded, point it at the cashier and tell her to give me her money… I did nothing wrong because I couldn’t have shot her so I had no leverage. Ok.
Are the Ukrainians that dumb?
You seriously think that the Ukrainians see themselves being extorted by Trump and think to themselves… “well it’s in the US budget so we’ll be fine”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So what? all of politicking is a quid pro quo
What is so difficult about understanding what a quid pro quo is?
Asking a foreign country to investigate your political opponent in exchange for “a better relationship” with the US (continuation of the foreign aid you stopped and a meeting at the White House) is not politicking. That’s corruption. If you still find this difficult just imagine if Biden or Hillary did it, it will magically become crystal clear.
Created:
Posted in:
The Democrats just want to redefine what a quid pro quo is
It’s an exchange of an official act for ones personal gain. This isn’t complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't see why offering a favor to improve a relationship is a bad thing.
No one offered anyone a favor. Rudy asked Ukraine for something blatantly inappropriate at best (an investigation into the president’s political opponent) in exchange for “making sure that whatever misunderstandings are put aside”.
I look forward to the logical pretzel you will contort yourself into square this.
Do you think that Trump should help cover up Biden's corrupt dealings, of which, supposedly "evidence already exists"?
Staying out of something you have no business involving yourself in in the first place is not covering anything up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
I don't presently understand how you might construe the situation pertaining to then-president Trump as an "abuse of power".
See ramshutu’s post (#6). Not much I can do to top that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It sounds like he asked for him to do him a favor and just be honest. Being even handed and honest, is literally the opposite of quid pro quo.
A quid pro quo is when you offer an official act in exchange for a personal benefit. Here we have Rudy asking for an *announcement* of an investigation into Trump’s political opponent in exchange for “making sure that whatever misunderstandings are put aside”. Please explain how you conclude that this is perfectly normal and acceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
Rudy to Ukrainian officials...
Are conservatives, on this site anyway, going to finally stop pretending there was no attempted quid pro quo?
3 days later Trump would go on to tell Zelensky "I need you to do is a favor THOUGH".All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out...That would clear the air really well, and I think it would make it possible for me to come and make it possible, I think, for me to talk to the President (Trump) to see what I can do about making sure that whatever misunderstandings are put aside ... I kinda think that this could be a good thing for having a much better relationship.
Are conservatives, on this site anyway, going to finally stop pretending there was no attempted quid pro quo?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Another lie. Here is what you stated, verbatim:
This was literally, the first thing I said to you…
This is essentially just the nuclear argument. If your position cannot be substantiated then just blow up all knowledge so that you can claim the next persons argument is just as bad as yours.
If it were an honest rebuttal I would not need to use the phrase “so that you can claim”. It is once again, the entire point.
I would later of close go down the path of explaining why this matters in a practical sense, but that was before I realized what I was dealing with.
Objectivity = independent of gnosis
Provide one example of a statement that is true independent of gnosis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You have nothing left to argue.
An argument, by definition, utilizes logic. So when one claims logic is a value, and then criticizes another’s argument as “values based”, you’re right, there’s nothing left that person can possibly argue. This is what is called the nuclear method.
That is a lie. Your point from the start was to insinuate that the suggestion of knowledge as subjective was identical to "blowing it all up"
Aka the nuclear method. The reason why this is a problem is because it is dishonest. No lie there. It’s been the point since the start.
"2+2=4" is NOT objective. Not even in the slightest.
It’s literally the prime example of an objective statement. This is the point where one normally realizes the depths the logical hole they’ve dug themselves into so I’m just going to leave it there.
Created:
Posted in:
You:No, it’s rendered through the conclusion that the point you keep making serves no purpose other than to equate belief without evidence to withholding belief in the absence of evidence, and you claim that’s not what you’re doing but your argument is that the latter cannot criticize the former because both are “inside their heads”I:And once again, the equivalence I drew did not, and does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside one's head.
You’re the guy who responds to someone saying the earth is round by saying “no, it’s an oblate spheroid” then when people react with annoyance, spend the next hour justifying your response by explaining how it *is* an oblate spheroid. No awareness of the fact that what people are reacting to is not whether you are factually correct but the fact that you are pretending to raise the level of the conversation while you’re really just dumbing it down.
Yes, thinking occurs inside our heads. Congratulations. I was trying to give you credit for having a greater point that you thought meaningful in your conversation with atheists but apparently that really is all there was to it.
You've already conceded that the conclusions atheists render are value-based.
I conceded that conclusions are value based, because that is what follows when we accept the very concept of logic as a value.
Engagement in any type of rational conversation presupposes that both parties value logic, so calling someone’s conclusions value-based is meaningless, and I also find it to be intellectually dishonest because it purports to to do something (raising the level of the conversation) that it’s not. But that last part of course assumes that there is a point to making this statement, which apparently is not always the case.
So validate your premise: rationalize objectivity.
This isn’t my premise, and I haven’t responded to it because it’s an absurd ask. Rationalization is a process by which conclusions are derived, objectivity is a category of a particular type of conclusion. You don’t rationalize a category, you rationalize whether something belongs in that category.
2+2=4 is objective. That means that I have assessed it’s truth value as not subject to opinion. I used logic to arrive at that assessment because that is the only way this can be done. When we talk about objectivity, this is what we’re talking about. The fact that this process takes place inside my head does not negate the fact that there is a big difference between this, and the problem of someone believing things without evidence. Your criticism of atheists being inconsistent is just plain wrong because you are ignoring that difference in order to point to the similarity. That’s dishonest, which is and has been my point from the start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
This conclusion is rendered through the presumption that these debates and discussion have extended or can extend beyond/outside of conflicts of value statements.
No, it’s rendered through the conclusion that the point you keep making serves no purpose other than to equate belief without evidence to withholding belief in the absence of evidence, and you claim that’s not what you’re doing but your argument is that the latter cannot criticize the former because both are “inside their heads”. Pointing to the commonality between the two as a means of portraying them on equal footing is literally what it means to equate.
But the real problem with your “counter” is the fact that the entire point of the atheist statement you are attacking (that the theist’s belief is inside their heads) is to accuse the theist of disregarding (aka not valuing) reason as a means of reaching their conclusions. So to respond by essentially arguing “well reason is just your value” is absurd. No shit it’s my value and not yours, that’s the entire point of me telling you it’s inside your head. If you take issue with that then change it, if you don’t then own it. But stop trying to obfuscate by talking about whether objectivity is ultimately rational or whether it’s possible to arrive at a conclusion without value driven bias. All of that is well beyond the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The distinction between these positions is inextricably and inescapably one of value.
So what? Why should anyone care that it comes down to a distinction of values? What is your point?
The reason it does not suffice to me is because you continue to argue that you are not equating these things as you are equating them. Values are arbitrary and subjective, so arguing that believing in something without evidence, and rejecting a claim because there is no evidence are both merely products of our values serves no purpose other than to equate the two as just one person’s values against another. In other words... the nuclear method.
Created:
Posted in:
You have proven nothing. I've explicitly explained the reason objectivity is irrational.
You seem to have forgotten what this is about and how we got here. This is about your criticism of atheists and why it is meaningless. Let’s look back where it started...
so when I challenge [atheists] to substantiate that their arguments or their empirical observations extend beyond the notions on which they premise them, they can't.
But your “challenge” is nothing more than an appeal to infinite regress. Ultimately, we all have to rely on our own senses and reasoning to form conclusions. So what? That does not equate a theist believing in something without evidence to an atheist rejecting a claim because there is no evidence. You’ll probably respond by claiming you weren’t equating the two, and if so I ask, then what is your point? Why should any atheist care about anything you are saying here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
How is your perception of reality distinct from your conception of reality? If as you mentioned above, everyone has their own biases, and said biases will be applied to all that which one believes, then how does the concept of reality escape bias?
Congratulations, you’ve discovered the problem of infinite regress.
And by the way (given that this complaint is levied to the point of vexation) all arguments are semantic. All arguments outside of mathematics use words and terms. Those words and terms and the syntax their arrangement forms reflect the intentions and meanings of the argument's author. If you don't intend on "arguing semantics," you might as well not argue.
The term semantics has an actual meaning, and that meaning is not “to argue”. How many times are you going to perfectly demonstrate the nuclear method while claiming you are not using it?
give me an example of one thing that you know to be objectively true.Objectivity is irrational.
Point proven yet again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Nope--not even remotely true. The intention behind my statements was not to "blow up all knowledge" and claim that the atheist's argument is "as bad as" the theist's argument.
I feel the need to remind you what this conversation is about. After equivocating the theists belief in god with the atheists use of logic on the basis that both are “inside their heads”, I pointed out to you that you are using the nuclear method. If you had just said “yes I am” this conversation would have been over a long time ago. Instead you continue to argue point by point every piece of it while claiming it’s not what you’re doing. That’s the issue here.
Of course people have their own biases. Of course those biases will always be applied to anything that one believes. But if you do not accept the concepts of reality itself, and the validity of logic (the foundations of knowledge) as objective, then you are not worth having a conversation with. That’s the point of bringing up the nuclear argument, not to claim that mankind has solved the problem of infinite regress.
You are now alleging that commonality in the rationalization of reality is mutually exclusive from the subjectivity of knowledge.
Complete strawman. I was explaining the why it matters, not the what. And I needed to do that because you went the semantic route implying that I don’t understand that we have the capability to believe whatever we want.
I understand that "objectivity" is irrational; Knowledge is rational; therefore, knowledge cannot be objective.
Let’s try this, give me an example of one thing that you know to be objectively true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mine already has.
Society hasn’t collapsed
since half the country was retarded enough to trust the government with the fucked up Orangemanbad policies.
I find the “Orangemanbad” talking point to be one of the stupidest things coming from the right during the Trump era. It’s nothing more than intellectual laziness and an attempt to pretend all the baggage Trump brings with his brazen hypocrisy, idiocy, childishness, petulance, and malfeficence just aren’t there no matter how laughably obvious.
In this case, the Orangemanbad policies you are talking about are the ones being pushed by actual experts, not that this matters to trumpers since expertise is itself under attack by this “movement”. I mean why have someone who knows what they’re doing in charge? I guess the next time my car breaks down I’ll take it to a plumber.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
What is the issue with this? Individuals can believe whatever they want.
We’re not talking about the limits of human capability. That should have been obvious. Of course individuals can believe whatever they want... what do you mean what’s the issue with this? This is the issue.
I don’t understand why I need to explain this but clearly I do; in order for us to function as a civilization we have to share a common sense of reality so that we can solve our problems and advance our interests. The “nuclear method” is problematic because it seeks to undermine the very foundation that all of us sit on in our efforts to achieve that common sense of reality. In other words, it’s selfishly destructive.
This is why I think when I told you that you were advocating the nuclear method you denied it. Seems to me that you intuitively understood what was wrong with what I was alleging even though you are going hard for it now. Why I don’t know, but back to the point...
And "right" and "wrong" are assessments reflecting one's values.
Exactly. So when someone says the earth is flat, to say they’re wrong is to merely assert values. According to this kind of warped thinking we could never make progress on a disagreement because all it boils down to is our opinion. We might as well debate whether chocolate is better than strawberry.
It’s absurd, and we would never prosper as a society by adopting this kind of thinking.
It accomplishes removing the presumption of the indisputable.
That’s not a good thing. The concept of the indisputable is what, for example, holds democracies together. Once upon a time the guy who received more votes was indisputably the president. But now because we have had a president who saw the opening that you are trying to pry open, we live in a society where nearly half the population lives in a delusion that he really won, so instead of solving our problems were now in a war over reality itself.
This makes no sense. I'm not claiming to be "objective" about this. Furthermore, objectivity does not apply in statements about knowledge.
To claim knowledge about something is to claim that you are right about that something. i.e. “I am right that the earth is round”. But your own value driven standards do not allow for you to be right because if knowledge is all subjective the there is no such thing as right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Pathological liars believe what they say.
That’s not corruption
It is the responsibility of congress to set a budget and allocate spending. It is 100% congresses fault.
And congress does what we the voters will allow. Unfortunately in today’s climate, the answer is nothing. Every 2 years members of congress get swapped out for “outsiders” who are going to fix Washington, yet here we are decades later. The problem is not the people in Washington, it’s the people sending those people there.
Yes I will laugh while society canalizes it self.
Aside what what an asshole that makes you... do you really think your life will improve while society collapses?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That's all still inside one's head.
Yes, this is what we refer to as “thinking”. It’s kind of how we form all of our beliefs about everything, so I have a hard time believing that is the thing any atheist you have interacted with was actually pointing to.
Knowledge is subjective--repetitive, I know . Why would one then suggest that "it all be blown up" because its subjective?
Calling it subjective is blowing it up. The point of the nuclear method is to get rid of the concept of right vs wrong when assessing statements about reality, thereby allowing the individual to believe anything they want. Arguing that anything we consider to be knowledge is subject to nothing more than value driven standards accomplishes exactly that.
What’s nonsensical about this is that in order to know anything the individual must first believe they are right, so the person who calls knowledge subjective can no longer claim knowledge to anything.
Created:
Posted in:
This was the point of the entire exercise; to see who would assume I am the aggressor, and you’re all of that assumption. You’re too quick to commit the same aggression of which you accuse me.
Quite a desperate attempt to rewrite your OP. Let us be reminded of the point your words actually made...
She was offended. She didn't think that was funny at all.Amazing, isn't it, that some people can dish it out, but can't take it.Like dishing on Trump for 4 years, but mention Rollover Joe, and the same dishers can't taker it. You know who your are.
I didn’t know nor would I have cared to know whether your story was real or part of your fiction collection. The point that came across very clearly was a false equivocation between the harassment and possible assault of this women your story described and the kind of harassment Trump received for the past 4 years.
Isn’t turn-about fair play?
Sure it is. So when Biden puts his son in law in charge of, well, everything in the US government, trash talks rural America, and suggests stopping a hurricane by dropping a nuclear bomb in it, have at it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I didn’t answer your question because it’s nothing more than an absurd attempt to make a false equivocation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You missed the same lesson as Didicit. And that there was "another indignant woman."
And you missed the word “same” in my response. Which is crazy cause I highlighted it with stars.
So to be clear, your argument is that one person’s belligerence towards you justifies your belligerence towards someone else, is that right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Putin’s puppy dog. Wow that’s cute. Now show me where Joe advocated for Russia to get back into the G8, threatened to pull out of NATO, took Putin’s side over that of his own intelligence community in front of the whole world, bragged about how much Putin liked him, and oh yeah... met with Putin while kicking out all US government personnel and then destroying the transcript of the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I just love how Pelosi takes the mask off in the White House but demands everyone wear masks on the House Floor
That’s because everyone in the White House is vaccinated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Then I asked her if I could knock it off her face. She was offended. She didn't think that was funny at all.Amazing, isn't it, that some people can dish it out, but can't take it.Like dishing on Trump for 4 years, but mention Rollover Joe, and the same dishers can't taker it. You know who your are.
I missed the part of the story where this *same* woman approached you and asked if she could knock the MAGA hat off your head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm arguing that it's hypocritical/inconsistent to critique something on the basis that "it's inside his head," while employing standards which are based on what's "inside your head.“
No one is using the phrase “inside ones head” the way you are. The phrase points to a belief held without supporting evidence. That is not the same thing as the use of logic itself, so there is no inconsistency here. You can’t change the meaning of what someone else is saying in order to argue that they are being hypocritical.
No, they're stating that your standards of evaluation are different and/or undermine my standards of evaluation according to my standards of evaluation.
So back to my original point, this is the nuclear method. Reduce logical differences to nothing more than a difference between subjective standards of evaluation, therefore everything is just a matter of values based opinion and thus no one has any ground to claim that their opinion is better than the next one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Then what is your point? You claim you’re not using the “nuclear method”, but that’s exactly what everything you have said amounts to.
I pointed out the hypocrisy in rejecting God because he is allegedly based on a conception borne from "inside one's head" when the very standards which inform one's rejection is based on conceptions borne "inside one's head."
If the standard you are referring to are the principals of logic then this is an utterly pointless criticism and is just plain wrong. There is no hypocrisy in using logic to critique someone else’s conclusions, that’s the only way it can be done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So we’re back to the question I asked you a few posts ago... is adherence to the principals of logic merely a value that you assess as no better than the next person’s values?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
When someone says something is in your head they are merely saying that you are not basing your belief on anything that can be empirically demonstrated.
What does being “values based” have to do with anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Which politicians are doing what's in the best interest of society and the people?
The ones who believe what they are saying, which in my view excludes most Republicans. But that is not corruption. Playing to your base with stupidity and misinformation is slimy, but that’s not corruption. Unfortunately however many probably believe their own BS.
Ripping the taxpayers blind and deficit spending that is bankrupting the country into oblivion.
That’s not their fault, it’s ours. We (collectively) are the idiots who won’t allow our representatives to do anything positive if it makes the other side look good. We are the idiots who pay more attention to a sex scandal than a hearing on nuclear security. We are the idiots who know nothing about what bills our representatives sponsored but know everything about what they have said on Twitter. In a recent poll over 50% of rural voters think republicans are responsible for the last round of COVID payments... you know, the ones not a single republican voted for.
Politicians are doing what all employees do, focusing on the priorities their boss focuses on so they can keep their jobs. Put the blame where it belongs.
I will laugh when the whole corrupt worthless govt comes crashing down like a hose made of cards.
No, you won’t. Show me one example of a successful functioning society in the aftermath of its own government collapsing.
This is a monumentally stupid sentiment, but yet it is made readily by people here in one of, if not, the wealthiest nation on earth. Worthless government? Have you ever left the country? Spend a week in the Dominican Republic or Ethiopia and come back and tell me all about how worthless the US government is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
My definition of politics can be found by googling “politics definition”
Yes I get that you see corrupt politicians everywhere, because that’s what gets clicks and makes headlines. Do you really think that’s all there is? If I go to social media and all I see are bad cops shooting black people, can I conclude that all cops are driven by racism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not my message, but if that’s how you see things...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Attitudes like what? Please enlighten me as to what you read into my two sentence reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Politics is the natural result of people within a society having different opinions on how that society should function. Do you seriously have no concept of what that looks like without everyone involved being corrupt?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Trump is not the dolt you make him out to be.
More like the one you made him out to be. Your entire defense of Trump was to argue that he’s such an idiot there’s no way Zelenskyy could have understood what he wanted from the call.
The last quarter's payment, for Q4 2019, had already been paid the previous quarter, so all the hype about Ukraine urgently needing the aid rapido speedo to combat the Russians was all a Prog hoax because Ukraine already had the payment to finish out the last quarter of FY 2019. Forget that? Never knew it?
Neither. This has no relevance to this discussion. If a bank employee makes all the preparations to rob the bank, and then turns around at the last minute when the lights come on, you might not have enough to charge him but you sure have enough to ensure the employee never again has access to the safe.
Do we forget Biden's story in Jan 2018 about delaying the billion dollars was, in fact, a threat to Ukraine?
Not at all. The idea that what Biden did compares to anything Trump tried to do is absurd. Biden, acting *on behalf of the US government* threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if they did not clean up their own corruption problem. There’s no comparison between that and threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine if they don’t investigate your political opponent to help you win re-election. Why do I have to explain this? You really believe I’m the one here suffering from hate bias?
Created: