Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Public-Choice
Special investigations into political opponents? Indicting the opposition? This isn't democracy. This is tyranny. Biden is officially a dictator.
The absurdity of this thread highlights how it is possible that MAGA is a real thing, and why America is so fucked.
As the article referenced made clear, the proposal of a special counsel was to oversee “two sprawling investigations”, as in two investigations already well underway. Nothing about this suggests a “special investigation”, only special oversight of those investigations since they would now be conducted on a presidential candidate. This is clearly an attempt to avoid the appearance of political bias.
You also assert, unsurprisingly without any evidence, that Biden is somehow behind this despite the fact that he’s made clear since the campaign (and unlike Trump) that the justice department is to be run independent from the White House and nothing we have seen since then has suggested the reality is anything else.
And as far as “indicting the opposition”, Trump is very clearly guilty of stealing classified documents and obstructing that investigation. To not indict him would he highly political, as the only plausible explanation would be because he’s a politician.
Everything I just said is common sense. If it was the Trump justice department reacting to Obama walking away with classified documents and then declaring his candidacy it would suddenly be clear to you.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
If nihilism is true then life is meaningless and morality as you see it is an illusion
Nihilism isn’t a truth claim so this makes absolutely no sense.
why is the opposing response for the former fallacious but not the latter?
The former and latter of what?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
My definition of fake news would be any source of news that cherry picks stories and/or talks about stories with presuppositions using their own world view, any source that has any bias as opposed to just spouting dry facts without manipulating photos or using sound bites without full context.
This pretty much describes all news reported by human beings.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I just told you.
The error in logic is “I don’t want the conclusion to be true, therefore it isn’t”.
It’s basically an argumentum ad absurdum, except instead of reducing to absurdity, it reduces to undesirability, which is not a rational basis to reject it, hence why it’s a fallacy.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Take note of the “if” and “then”.
If we’re just a collection of atoms then we’re just doing what we’re programmed.
The conclusion “we’re just doing what we’re programmed” is a grim thought, so the point of this argument is to get people to reject the conclusion not because there is any error in logic within it, but because of the emotional impact on one’s psyche to accept that reality.
Thus the fallacy here is “I don’t want the conclusion to be true, therefore it isn’t”.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
What free will example?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
I'm not saying there's a 1/1,000,000 chance of *any* event happening. I'm saying there is that chance for *this* particular event to happen, or *that* particular event to happen. It's extraordinary when heads is flipped on a coin 250 times in a row. It's beyond extraordinary when there are multiple instances back-to-back of heads being flipped 250 times in a row, 50 times in a row, 150 times in a row etc. At some point you need to start asking: is the coin rigged?
Every event which occurs does in fact have a statistically impossible odds of occurring in some context, which is why this kind of backwards rationalization is fallacious.
If a coin is flipped 250 times and lands on heads each time you would be rationally justified in accepting that the coin is rigged. If a coin is flipped a few trillion times and somewhere in that stretch it lands in heads 250 times in a row that is no where near as remarkable. In fact with enough flips it even becomes probable to happen at some point.
Your case is more like the latter.
Feel free to address the OP of this thread, rather than a quick, summative comment I made mid-way through.
Not really interested. Conspiracies will always persist through rational scrutiny because they are relentless and exhausting. It takes far less effort to ramble off accusations than to do the actual work of understanding the situation and context. This is why I prefer to step back and look at the big picture. Your arguments are a product of anomaly hunting, just like going through trillions of flips to find consecutive heads. And of course, you fail to apply that same level of scrutiny to the alternative you are implying.
Tell you what, pick just one of the points you listed as evidence that this was planned and I’ll look into it in detail and give you my thoughts. Just. One.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Zheng was accused by local voters of telling black voters “…not to vote for the racist candidates outside”
Wow, well there’s the proof that the election was rigged in a wide spread conspiracy.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Could each of you state your position on whether objective facts exist, along with a one sentence definition of objective in that context? I'm having trouble keeping track of what you're arguing over.
In a colloquial sense, of course objective facts exist.
Philosophically however, the word “exists” in your question is problematic. What exists is reality. An objective fact is merely a statement of reality that is accurate regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
What I have been trying to explain to Tarik is the difference between the concept I just described vs the problem that all minds are subject to; there is no way to be absolutely certain whether a statement regarding reality is accurate. So when one calls something an objective fact, they are merely stating their personal belief. That belief can be analyzed as nothing more than that, so in the course of having a rational dialog between two individuals who do not agree on reality we have to think in terms of how we got to our beliefs rather than just asserting them.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
The fallacy in “appeal to emotion facially” is logic.
“Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones(meaning the same in Latin) is an informal fallacycharacterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.”
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I wouldn’t have to separate anything if you didn’t add the assessment variable into the equation to begin with.
I didn’t add it, I started talking about it because you took the conversation there after misunderstanding the last thing I said.
True, but when you argue in favor of it then what is it?
I never argued in favor of it, I argued from it.
Again, well being in my morality is foundational, as in, it’s the starting point. If you don’t agree with the starting point then you have different values than I do. Logic has nothing to do with that. Logic begins from the point at which the premises are asserted. Once I invoke well being as my foundation, only then can we apply logic to any situation to determine if it falls in line.
So when you say I’m making some appeal to emotion that’s just wrong. You can’t error in logic where no logic is being invoked.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Can you point to one thing I’ve said that would lead you to believe you needed to explain this to me?In post #834 when you saidTruth is an assessmentand you can’t assess without the operative word “cognizance”.
My god dude, you really need to learn how to read and understand context.
“Truth is an assessment” refers to the mental process we undertake in order to determine what we believe to be true.
I have for multiple posts now been explaining to you that the concept of an objective fact and the assertion of X as an objective fact are two totally different conversations. You still can’t separate them. You still can’t tell the difference between one and the other and you still accuse me of saying one while I’m talking about the other.
“Truth is an assessment” falls into the conversation of: the assertion of X as an objective fact.
“A fact does not require you to be cognizant of it to be true” falls into the conversation of: the concept of an objective fact.
What’s even worse is that the entire first half of this thread was me repeating to you over and over again and you refusing to accept my definition of objectivity as being independent of the mind. Yet here you are quoting someone else to show me that an objective fact is independent of the mind. Well, I’m glad to see you finally agree with me. I guess next time I’ll just quote K_Michael from the start and you’ll listen.
Caring about well being is purely emotionalIf that’s true then it’s also credence to my appeal of emotion fallacy argument
No, it’s not.
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, which means, it’s an error in logic. The statement above is simply stating a fact. Simply stating a fact does not involve logic, so it cannot be a logical fallacy.
This is really simple stuff. What is so difficult about this?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
A fact does not require you to be cognizant of it to be true.This is what I been trying to tell you, like I said I’m not on an island by myself.
Is this a joke?
Can you point to one thing I’ve said that would lead you to believe you needed to explain this to me? Are you not aware that this is in part what I’ve been explaining to you for weeks now?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Resolutions to disputes are possible when both sides accept logic and reason as the foundation for what they determine to be true. If you don’t then there’s no resolution here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
I'm arguing that having super unlikely events, like an insanely optimized coronavirus supposedly happening naturally in nature, are all compounding and making it astronomically unlikely that the Covid-19 outbreak didn't come from a lab and wasn't planned. Moreover, I'm saying that having multiple 1/1000 x 1/1,000,000 x 1/1,000,000 etc. events makes what I'm saying a virtual certainty.
That hardly changes anything.
Every event is itself unlikely. What are the odds that me and my now wife would have found ourselves in the same place at the same time on the same day that we did? You’re painting the bullseye around the bullet hole and then using the odds of the bullet hole landing where it did to justify asserting something else which you’ve made no attempt to justify.
All I argued that it was planned and that it was a lab leak.
The “planned” part is the part you have no evidence for nor any rationale to justify.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
If objective fact is contextually accurate why say the term is up for scrutiny?
Because anyone can claim something is or is not an objective fact and there will never be a way to resolve this. That’s why rational conversation about reality can only be had from the point at which we agree that something is an objective fact.
What the term “objective fact” means and whether X is an objective fact are two totally different conversations. What is so hard about this? How many different ways am I going to have to explain this?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Well being itself isn't a fact, it's a value.So what was the objective fact that you were referring to when you said
This too, has been explained multiple times already. Let’s look at the full quote again and then I’ll explain;
“No, they're not. We're talking now about epistemology, which literally translates into "the study of knowledge". An objective fact in this context has to be accepted as such, which requires a mental process to get to that point. That process is what epistemology is, that's what we're discussing.”
When we’re having any normal conversation, the term “objective fact” refers to something as is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it. The truth itself is what the term is pointing to.
When we’re talking about epistemology and discussing concepts like logical fallacies and validity, we’re talking about the mental processes we’re using to assess the reality around us. In this sense the term “objective fact” itself is up for scrutiny because in this philosophical conversation we’re talking about what qualifies something as an objective fact from our philosophical point of view. That’s a very different conversation.
If you read the full quote this is made clear. The very next thing I pointed to are those processes and talked about getting to the point in which we accept something as an objective fact. I was talking about philosophy.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
An objective fact in this context has to be accepted as such, which requires a mental process to get to that point.Like your acceptance of well being? Isn’t it then an objective foundational fact by that logic?
No, not like well being.
Well being itself isn't a fact, it's a value. It's the thing I chose to sit at the foundation of my morality. Determining whether something advances or conflicts with well being is a matter of fact, but that part comes after accepting well being as the foundation.
Why do I feel like I’ve explained this to you a dozen times already?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
I don’t think it was plannedThen how do you explain the preparation for Covid before the outbreak of it? Why was the virus being optimized to attack humans, and did end up optimized at 99.5%? I can't think of an alternative explanation other than plandemic.
Classic argument from ignorance fallacy.
Whatever explanation we could come up with for the issues you raise would seem far more reasonable than the idea of a bunch of nefarious individuals creating a deadly and extremely contagious virus just to unleash it to the whole planet killing millions of people.
It's the latter theory that needs to be explained to be taken seriously.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I have mixed feelings about affirmative action, but overall I support it. You talk about equal rights, I'm pretty sure you'd agree that black people didn't have them throughout the early history of this country and you can't argue that the lack of equity we see today is not at least in part, a direct result of that.
To truly believe in the principal that all men are created equal as a means of guiding our society is to take into account the fact that we are all born into different circumstances, and those circumstances (which are completely out of our control) play a major role in our ability to be successful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
That isn’t data though, it’s a model that includes some data (pretty much polling data and maybe some economic information) but also a whole lot of assumptions on how to interpret that which you may or may not agree with
It’s the result of running simulations based on the data, sure it’s more than just raw data but they go into pretty fine detail to explain how their simulations work.
No one has a crystal ball, this about the best anyone can do when it comes to determining what outcomes are most likely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Which senate seats do y’all have flipping vs staying the same
I don't predict, I just look at the data and presume it is mostly accurate.
Created:
Different contexts is not synonymous with different meaning.Which is what I said in post #932 (in reference to the subject matter).
That was before post 938 when you asked me this;
you can easily nip this in the bud right now by giving me an example of an objective fact having a different meaning in different contexts, considering that’s what you implied in post #930.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
you can easily nip this in the bud right now by giving me an example of an objective fact having a different meaning in different contexts, considering that’s what you implied in post #930.
Different contexts is not synonymous with different meaning. The context refers to what the conversation is actually about. In this case we weren't talking about what objective facts are, we were talking about how one goes about determining whether something is an objective fact.
The term "objective fact" means the same thing either way, but the focus of the conversation is entirely different. One focuses on the facts themselves, the other focuses on the mental processes of our brains. Completely different topics.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I didn't say we were comparing the totality of two speperate conversations, and no, nothing we've talked about could be described as "comparing the content of a specific words meaning in separate conversations".
You are lost. Please re read our conversation and try again.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
An objective fact is the same IN ANY CONTEXT, I don’t know why you insist on making simple concepts like this so complicated.
The discussion shifted towards logical fallacies, validity, and determining truth. Do you not understand how that conversation is entirely sperate from the conversation about facts themselves?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Epistemology is not a process to determine what is subjective or objective. It is a study of what we know or don’t know.Objective facts are built on facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, ...and therefore foundational.
Can you please explain what it is that you've said here which I didn't just say and/or don't understand?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Objective facts are foundational.
No, they're not. We're talking now about epistemology, which literally translates into "the study of knowledge". An objective fact in this context has to be accepted as such, which requires a mental process to get to that point. That process is what epistemology is, that's what we're discussing.
In other words, foundational premises are the very ground we stand on before we can accept anything as an objective fact. So no, objective facts are not foundational.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes or no, do you believe the inflation reduction act has the potential to reduce inflation?
I don't know, I haven't really studied it like that. What does that have to do with our conversation?
Those policies were in place when gas was 2 dollars a gallon, it's silly to think those policies began and ended in 2021 when people started complaining.
So you admit that the same policies you are citing as justification for blaming gas prices on Biden were in place before Biden was president. So what is your point here?
I would have been a huge Biden supporter if he had reversed those policies instead of doubling down.
You would have been a huge Biden supporter if he reversed Trump era policies? And the reason you oppose him so hard is because he doubled down on... Trump policies?
I understand that you profess to not be a Trump supporter, but if I'm understanding your statements here correctly, can you please point me to where in the past you've posted your discontent with Trump over his gas policies? I seem to have missed those.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Nah, I listened to it. But 9/11 had really nothing to do with democracy. It was a terror attack from foreigners.
Hence why it was worse "In terms of an attack on our democracy"
So, it would seem that he thinks that it was worse than 9/11 since he is making that comparison at all.
And you guys claim we're the ones with derangement syndrome.
You are just making shit up because it suits your 'evil liberals' narrative. The reference to 9/11 is often made because of the size and scale of it in our minds. No over will ever need to explain to you or remind you of how big of an event it was, we all agree on that. With regards to January 6th on the other hand, there is an entire campaign to minimize it and pretend like it was nothing, so people on the left often use this kind of language to make their point; this was a big deal. You might not think so, but your grandkids and great grandkids will. It's just a question of whether it will be remembered as the height of a America's flirtation with fascism and autocracy or the beginning.
I know lefties can't hide their joy over the death of a veteran during the "INSURRECTION",
And right wingers can't hide their joy over all the damage and casualties that resulted from the BLM riots.
See, I can make stupid insinuations about the other side too.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
But what is meant by "no man is greater than any other"?
Equal rights. No man is a king, no man is above the law, no man's voice counts more than any other. Our system of government operates on a system, not via any individual or group of individuals.
Why do you keep asking me this? What is so difficult about it?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If DeSantis had the power to open drilling in Alaska, open the keystone pipeline, not insult the Saudis when asking for help, not promise to end oil, and refuse to offer permit fee exceptions along with relaxing NEPA restrictions on permits, then yeah, I'd stand arm in arm with you blaming DeSantis for high gas prices
Ok, so we have...
- Open drilling in Alaska
- Keystone pipeline
- Kissing the Saudi's ass
- A statement that he would end oil while campaigning for president
- His refusal to offer permit free exceptions
Let's try this... Pick just one of these things you mentioned and quantify the impact this has had on gas prices over the past year. Explain how and why gas prices would have been lower if he had done what you're suggesting and let's see how much of a difference it would have made.
I'll wait.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is it Not OK when Trump does it but OK when Biden not only does it but does it a LOT worse?
You are the one who called them the "Biden lockdowns" despite the fact that they happened while Trump was president.
You are the one claiming that COVID stimulus payments are part of the reason for this high inflation which Biden is to blame for, despite the fact that Trump literally put his name on the checks to make sure everyone knew he was to thank for them.
I haven't made any argument that anything is ok when Biden does it, I'm responding to the stupid, thoughtless, and unserious argument that Biden is to blame for inflation because of everything that happened while Trump was president.
It doesn't even matter if you have better arguments that you could have pulled out, the fact that you put these arguments forward demonstrates that you really don't care about what's causing it, you are just looking for anything you can use to attack Biden over.
TDS is nothing but projection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I guess those libs really loved Ashli Babbitt if her death was worse than 2,977 9/11 victims
"In terms of an attack on our democracy, something that could bring about actual change in our government..."
He was talking about our democracy, not the victims. If you actually cared to listen to what he was saying you would know this, but clearly quote mining is so much easier.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If I tried to argue that Desantis was governor of Florida while the state saw it's highest gas prices ever and therefore he was responsible, you would instantly recognize not only how stupid that is but also how easily you could disprove it by pointing to the fact that gas prices are high in every other state.
So why do you pretend you can't figure out the exact same thing when it comes to Biden?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Shortages were mainly caused by Biden lockdowns plus money printing paying people to not produce anything.
Trump was president during those lockdowns, and he literally put his name on the checks.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
I merely supplied analysis from a source I thought you might respect, without daring to supply any analysis of my own. Silly me— you are clinically unable to take in opposing facts and analysis no matter what the source. Honestly, because your outright dismissals and weaselly rationalizations are to be expected, I “decided to chime in” for the benefit of others who might be reading, so it isn’t a complete waste.Yet you wonder why your posts garner mainly low effort, troll responses
I don't wonder at all, I'm discussing issues with people like yourself who are intellectually lazy and very defensive of protecting the sense of self identity politics gives you. So you throw your jabs wherever you see an opening and then retreat when a thorough and thoughtful response is given that you can't handle. And to protect from your own inability to handle it you pretend I'm the problem and dismiss everything I said with no further thought by going with the generic "you're not worth my time" response.
If you're really here for the benefit of those reading, them explain to them what was actually wrong with anything I just said.
“That was four days ago, five days ago.”
Exactly. Everything I just said and this is your response.
But I'm the problem. Ok bro...
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you still care about Fox news? Most people on the right don't even watch Fox news...
Last I checked, Fox news still has the highest ratings of any news network. If that has changed I would find that interesting, but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I just said.
Try reading my post again, replace "Fox News" with whatever prominent right wing news source you like. Then feel free to respond to the point.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Even after I pointed it out, you still speak as if foreign interference began and concluded in 2016.
No, I'm not. If you actually read the conversation you decided to chime in on, this is about the false equivalence between Clinton and her supporters claiming Trump was an illegitimate president vs Trump and the MAGA right claiming the 2020 election was stolen. I'm not defending the "illegitimate president" position, just pointing out that it's not absurd the way the stolen election claims are.
This really is an absurd conversation to have, it used to be beyond obvious to everyone. And you can have your own opinions about it all you want, but you cannot pretend that all of the same people on TV pretending there's nothing wrong with it now didn't recognize this as an issue before Trump.I don’t really know what “it” is in this entire paragraph.
"It" is the idea that a foreign advasary hacking US intuitions and spreading intentionally false stories in order to influence a US election should be regarded as anything other than an attack on our country, no matter who stands to benefit.
Well dang, the DOJ really should launch an investigation into such an unwholesome relationship.
It came from the Mueller report genius;
"[The] investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
Right; things are muuuch better now…
Yes, they are. Just a few days ago it was revealed in the Bob Woodward recordings that Trump claimed to have a plan to fight the pandemic but decided he wouldn't tell anyone yet because it was too far out from the election and no one would remember what he did if it came out too soon.
In other words, he decided that it was ok for hundreds of thousands of Americans to die so he could improve his chances of winning reelection.
So did this make headlines across the country or command Congressional investigations? No. It was barely reported on, because no one cares. This isn't news, this is Trump being Trump. Everyone knows this is the kind of president and person Trump was and is.
If Biden was caught on tape saying anything remotely like this it would be played on Fox news every day for the next 5 years and you know it. Hell, they still talk about Benghazi where the same thing was alleged of Clinton and Obama despite having no evidence of it and it resulting in four american deaths (not hundreds of thousands).
You cannot sit here with a straight face and pretend these two men remotely reassemble each other when it comes to concern for their country vs concern for themselves.
Created:
I think you know I have told you before that: yes, Russia spent around 100,000 dollars to influence the 2016 election to try to fight against Hillary's warhawk agenda.@IwantRooseveltagainThe meddling of Russia should be the very least of your concerns.I think I read somewhere that pharmaceutical ads finance up to 70% of most media outlets.... and you are concerned about Russia? Still?
You make it sound as if Russia was just buying TV ads and donating to republican campaigns. Whatever amount of resources they spent in 2016 (I suspect way more that $100k) was spent illegally hacking US institutions and spreading intentionally and blatantly false stories through fake social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter, among other tactics.
This is what the term "fake news" actually meant before Trump hijacked it for his own political gain. The term came from the intelligence community to describe stories that were purely made up by fascist governments to keep it's target audience believing whatever they wanted them to believe.
So not only is there already a big difference in the the "how", but the real difference is in the "why". Russia isn't trying to weigh in in order to get the candidate whom they believe will be most economically favorable to them. They picked Trump because he was uniquely suited to advance their ultimate goal; to destroy the US from within.
That is what Russia, or more accurately Putin is after. The US just by the sheer example of our success as a democratic society threatens Putin's power and by extension, his life. He wants this country to burn so he chose the man he thought would actually accomplish that goal, and it's worked wonders. What you and all your little cohorts here should really be asking yourselves is why you don't find it odd that his vision aligns with yours.
Did that make the election illegitimate?
Like I said, it doesn't in my view, or at least I wouldn't go that far to say that. But that doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable basis on which to make that claim. Legitimacy is a product of doing things in a way that all parties understand at the outset is acceptable. Not all rules are written, and in fact in politics most rules actually aren't. We operate largely on an honor system, but Trump has no concept of honor whatsoever, so he exploited it and burned that system to the ground and brought the whole republican party with him.
So while I would say it was naive of anyone to expect better from him being that he made his contempt for simple things like integrity and dignity clear, the fact that we as a society didn't see better or just didn't care is our fault. We get the president we deserve.
All of this however is again, night and day difference from there factually bullshit claim that Trump won the election. So yet again, there is no equivalence here.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you believe Russia interfered inn the 2016 election? Yes or no?
Fixed
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Many can see how institutions such as the media, academia, and multinational corporations all assisted in putting a decrepit person in power in 2020. You and your ilk speak as though Russian influence in our elections originated in 2016 and ended shortly thereafter. It’s a joke…
The media, academia, and corporations are not foreign advasaries. Do you seriously think there is no difference?
This really is an absurd conversation to have, it used to be beyond obvious to everyone. And you can have your own opinions about it all you want, but you cannot pretend that all of the same people on TV pretending there's nothing wrong with it now didn't recognize this as an issue before Trump.
As far as me personally, I am not so much bothered by the fact that Trump won in part because of the help he got from the Russians, and I'm not actually one claiming that makes Trump an illegitimate president even though I do push back against the idiots who pretend that there is an equivalence between that and and Trump running around claiming he actually won. My issue is the fact that Trump made the help he got from them central to his campaign. He's the one who called for them to hack our institutions, and then when they did he coordinated his message around everything they were releasing. He wasn't trying to hide it.
US presidents are supposed to protect the country against foreign threats. Trump has made clear from day one that the only thing he cares about protecting is his own self interest, and he will burn this country down if he thinks that is what's best for him.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
democrats are pointing to things that are objectively real and factualSo you do believe Hillary's big lie.
Do you believe Russia interfered inn the 2020 election? Yes or no?
Do you believe it is ok for the US to allow a foreign advasary to interfere in our elections? Yes or No?
Somehow I suspect you will avoid answering these questions directly and reply with ones of your usual stupid one liners.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I’m not talking about drawing a valid conclusion under the pretense of a given statement, I’m simply talking about disputing the truth value of a claim.
But that is how you dispute it. Every truth claim is based on an argument, that argument is necessarily made up of two parts; premises and logic. That's it's anatomy so it doesn't matter whether you want to deal with it, it's still what makes it up.
So if you want to dispute a truth claim there are only two ways to do this; either challenge the premises the claim is based on or challenge the logic of the argument.
Challenging the premises is perfectly fine in any normal circumstance, but at some point infinite regress kicks in. Which is to say that at some point, there either will not be an answer or we will get down to our foundational premises like "I exist" or "the reality I experience is real". These premises cannot be substantiated, they are presumed. So on some level... Everything we believe to be true about the reality we experience is presumed. There is no solution to this, so to hang your hat on the idea that an argument built on premises that could be untrue makes the argument worthless is self defeating since that can be applied to anything.
So when you dismiss a concept because it only relies on internal logic and not necessarily true premises you are engaging is a massive self contradiction because every single thing you believe to be true is ultimately based on internal logic being applied to premises that may not be true.
“I did not say anything close to "logical arguments are fallacious".Yeah you did it’s when you said “qualify as logic in order to be considered a logical fallacy.”
You cannot assess whether the logic of a claim is valid if there is no logic. That's like judging the quality of the pizza inside an empty box.
But aren’t you doing something similar in regards to nihilism? The idea that life has no meaning or purpose is grim so you convince yourself that “well-being” is the way to go over nihilism because that’s what you would like.
Who is talking about nihilism?
I focus on well being because that is what I care about. I don't care about it out of some need to fulfill some void left by something else. Caring about well being is purely emotional and use how most of us are wired. It's foundational, so no explanation is required.
I'm sorry that your religion teaches you to feel like your existence is worthless without a god, not everyone feels that way.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@cristo71
do you actually believe there is an equivalence between Clinton's position on Trump's victory vs what Trump still peddles to this day?Politifact rates a claim of equivalence as “half true”:“PolitiFact VA: Democrats questioned validity of 2016 election, but not how votes were counted”
The claim Politifact was specifically referring to was Glenn Younkin stating that the democrats said the 2016 election was stolen. It's half true only because the word "stolen" can be used in completely different ways.
The democrats used it to refer to the fact that Trump won with the assistance of a foreign adversary, something every republican used to believe was a bad thing until it was no longer politically convenient for them. Now they no longer care. He also won with the assistance of the FBI, something republicans clearly know is wrong as they rant about it everytime there's a new investigation into Trump (even though he clearly violated the law).
In other words, democrats are pointing to things that are objectively real and factual, and characterizing it's impact.
Trump and the Republicans are just making shit up, pretending not that the American people were wrongfully manipulated into voting for Biden, but that the American people actually voted for Trump but some grand multi-state conspiracy installed the loser into the White House.
These are completely different things.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So there is no authority in quoting the text if it ignores what they meant.
That's exactly the problem, they did mean the same thing we do today in the sense that the whole idea of the government they envisioned is one on which no man was greater than any other.
The problem is that they didn't consider black people (or basically anyone who wasn't white) as people.
The quote and it's original meaning still holds today, just not who is supposed to be included in it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Question: "Do you believe the nonsense you post"
Answer: "No, I don't believe Hilary's lies"
So in other words, you're just trolling. Got it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Right, they want to destroy the constitutional republic by ensuring politicians are elected by the people.
Cause that really answers the question of why republicans keep pleading the 5th...
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hillary's big lie about Trump being an illegitimate president
Do you believe the nonsense you post?
That's a serious question, do you actually believe there is an equivalence between Clinton's position on Trump's victory vs what Trump still peddles to this day? Or is trolling just a daily hobby of yours?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I find it equally odd that the people wanting to tear down Jefferson statues are also the people who cannot keep themselves from quoting him
That's because people believe in the quote even if the person citing it didn't. It's not about Jefferson, it's about the ideals this country was supposedly founded on. What is odd about that?
Created: