Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
@Shila
In reply, Fox Corp. spokesman Brian Nick points to Fox News's dominant ratings among cable news channels, and the network's strong appeal to Democrats and independent voters, as well as Republicans.
Turnbull: "you're destroying American democracy"
Fox: "but look at our ratings"
Exactly. That's Fox News.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
The video wasn't deceptively edited. The guy got fired by CNN AFTER the video was released.
I was thinking you had more than one video to reference, if the CNN guy saying “we got Trump out” is all you have that’s pretty weak evidence.
And again, he got fired for it.
I know you will just brush that off as just an attempt to save face publicly, but your conspiratorial feelings on what goes on behind closed doors at CNN is not an argument. Meanwhile the fact that Fox News did nothing in response to it’s hosts actions makes absolutely clear that Fox does not have those same standards CNN publicly holds it employees to. There is no rational argument here that CNN is worse, it’s all just your feelings.
The justification for asserting Fox News as worse goes well beyond that however. All of the instances you brought up are nothing more than the product of CNN employees having opinions. Again, no one is arguing that opinion hosts and the employees of these networks can’t have opinions. What makes Fox News so egregiously corrupt is the fact that they do not believe in many of the opinions they are spreading.
There are countless examples of Fox spreading nonsense they themselves reject. In the dominion libel case the Fox CEO called the dominion conspiracists “the crazies” and talked about not spreading this nonsense… until it hurt their bottom line not to. Tucker Carlson’s lawyers argued in court that his show should not be expected by any reasonable person to be factual. Hannity and Laura Ingram were found on those J6 texts to Mark Meadows saying very different things about the rioters from what they have been peddling on their shows ever since.
And then there’s the republican politicians who Fox News refuses to push back against, like Kevin McCarthy, Lindsay Graham and countless others talking trash about Donald Trump now pretending they think he’s great. They don’t. Kaleigh McEnany was a vocal Trump critic until she joined his administration, now she continues to spread his propaganda on a daily basis as a Fox News contributor. And I won’t even get started on the flagrant hypocrisy peddled by the network daily.
They don’t believe their own bullshit. Whatever you have to say about CNN, there is little if any evidence of the same about them.
Since when did the CIA become a political organization?In 2020 when they ran 60 Democrat candidates... The CIA always picks a side and runs a bunch of candidates on that side. In 2018, 2020, and 2022 it has been Democrats. They've basically overrun the party:
That doesn’t make the CIA a political organization. It means that is agents see the Democratic party as aligning with their views on intelligence, a fact that is hardly surprising given that the former president whom the party enthusiastically supports tried to use the military to overthrow the US election, something they've all seen in third world countries. And then there was that time he took Vladimir Putin's side over his own intelligence agencies...
You of course hand waive all of that away, and instead of asking yourself why these agents started running as democrats just pretend the fact that they did shows some sort of left wing takeover. It's not left wing, it's as basic American values as it gets. The problem isn't the CIA, it's the republican party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
The video could have been recorded by CNN themselves for all I care. It is video and physical documents I am citing. It doesn't matter who recorded it, facts are facts.
I think you missed the “deceptively edited” part.
Normally I would totally agree with you, the source is irrelevant to the evidence. But when it comes from a source that has a history of manipulating the evidence to suit their political agenda, that has to be taken into account.
CNN has a long history of colluding with the CIA and even hired former CIA agents to work as newscasters and journalists
Since when did the CIA become a political organization?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
So working as Biden's personal press corps and deciding you're going to use your network to put Biden into the White House is not as egregious as Fox News?
That’s your characterization of it. If you have any evidence, other than one guy saying “we got Trump out” I’d love to hear it.
I didn’t have to characterize what Fox News did, hence my overuse of the word “literally”.
The Project Veritas papers and videos prove that CNN was working for Biden.
“Project Veritas is an American far-right[16] activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.[20] The group produces deceptively edited videos[15] of its undercover operations,[7] which use secret recordings[7] in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.[21][22] Project Veritas also uses entrapment[14] to generate bad publicity for its targets,[4] and has propagated disinformation[3] and conspiracy theories[30] in its videos and operations.”
That’s just the first hit on Google. Keep going down the page and it only gets worse.
I do remember the planned parenthood thing, was never again interested in anything these people have to say. They’ve discredited themselves.
The only reason these people were fired was because they made CNN look bad.
And the reason they made CNN look bad is because CNN is a news network. Fox News determined that it did not look bad to have their own hosts on stage with the president at a campaign rally or coordinating their strategy with the White House press Secretary because they’re not news, they’re propaganda so there’s no conflict.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The point of the clip was to show that the media is a controlled industry.
Human beings expressing emotion does not prove anyone is controlled.
Repeating the mantra that "misinformation is a danger to democracy" is a self-serving message
It’s common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Many reporters and journalists are nauseated and weary about all the division that came from covering Trump 24/7 and for even 2 years after Trump had no more power.
Right, cause the division was a product of reporting on Trump, not because of Trump himself. Ok bro.
The DNC on the other hand is actually paying to support populist candidates that they think will be easy to beat. The DNC is taking the opposite direction of cancel culture in the hopes of dividing the country further
This is just stupid.
The DNC made a calculation based on what they thought would give them the best chances of winning. That’s literally their job. There’s nothing about this that supports the idea that this was about some nefarious goal of dividing the country. That is just your usual nonsense conspiracy bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
No grey parrot has a point. That shows blatant bias.
It’s not a great point, because it doesn’t compare. Again, I’m not arguing that there’s no bias on the left. I’m arguing that the egregiousness of Fox is not matched to any other mainstream network. Whatever anecdotal example of a news anchor crying he’s talking about at worst shows that they wanted Trump to lose. That’s a matter of personal opinion, no one is claiming they’re not allowed to have them. That is night and day different from working with his campaign/administration.
The fact that hosts like Hannity and Jeanine Shapiro didn’t even think “oh wait, I’m supposed to be reporting on Trump so I shouldn’t get on stage with him” alone demonstrates the lack of journalistic integrity of Fox. On any other network that is basic common sense, right on par with a doctor who doesn’t know he’s supposed to sanitize his hands before touching a client. But then for them to not even be disciplined for it? Fox made their lack of concern for this clear.
And that’s the least egregious of the three examples I gave.
But anyways to answer your question, I believe CNN and MSNBC and ABC are basically sold out to the World Economic Forum. And right now the Democrat Party is the part of the WEF.I have a feeling that mainline are Republicans running in 2022 are also going to be a lot of WEF plants, but that is my argument.
I have no idea how this is supposed to advance your point. It’s basically a giant conspiracy theory that doesn’t even connect the dots.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Beto did par with Hispanics compared to Hillary. If Beto had volunteers door knocking constantly, in every county, he definitely would’ve gotten the votes. Hold voter registrations at high schools too. There are so many ways. I’m literally in Texas lol. Just moving Hispanics 8% to the left in South Texas likely would’ve done it for Beto.
So to recap:
A) 12.5 million. Thank you.
B) ‘It’s just obvious’. Well no, it’s actually not.
C) The most important part; no attempt at an answer.
Disagreeing with the democrats strategically does not = they chose to lose. And it’s even worse when you’re doing it years later with all of the exit data to pick apart.
Winning a senate seat in Texas was always going to be an uphill battle so putting any money there in the first place was always risky. In retrospect, they would have been better off diverting all of their available resources from Texas to any of the other close states in that cycle. Does that mean they chose to lose those races as well? We can do this all day, which is why it’s stupid to claim that they “chose” anything. Show me your posts at the time talking about how incompetently they were spending their resources before the mid terms and then you can talk, till then it’s all just propagandistic nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Grown folks are talking. Go play.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I didn’t ask for made up numbers with assumed premises. You claimed the democrats chose Joe Manchin over Beto. You then backed up that statement by claiming that if they used their resources towards Beto instead of Joe then they would have ended up with Beto instead. In doing so you failed to explain:
A) How much money are we actually talking about, given that campaigns have their own money raised by their own donors. You act as if the DNC can just come in and take Manchin’s funds and hand them over to Beto. It doesn’t work that way.
B) What evidence you have that Texas voters would have either came out to vote for Beto instead of staying home because of this
C) How this little Monday morning quarterback exercise, even if you could substantiate every piece of it, logically supports your original claim.
All three of these is needed for your claim to have any merit worthy of debating. You have none.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Not only can I seriously argue it, I will actually be willing to formally debate it with you. I am that confident I can prove it.But it'll have to be in a week or two. I am already in 2 debates right now lol.
It’s a debate I would take if I had the time and energy to spend on it, I just don’t.
I gave you three examples of Fox News hosts working with the very politicians they’re supposed to be holding accountable. Can you provide just one example of anyone working for any other major news network doing anything like and not being immediately disciplined or fired for it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Equating political support with lying is a false equivalency. Just because a news outlet supports a candidate, that does not mean they lie. It means they engage in propaganda, but not that they lie.
Correct, which negates every argument you’ve made to support your claim that the mainstream networks lie as much or more than Fox.
We’re both doing the same thing here, I believe Fox News lies far more than the other networks, you disagree but a tit for tat debate won’t solve anything and there is no source either of us can provide actual statistics from that we would both accept. So we’re using examples of egregious political bias to make our point.
On that note, and I repeat, you cannot seriously argue that the other networks are on the same level as Fox News when it comes to political bias. Like I said, Fox hosts literally stood on stage with Trump at a campaign rally. Fox News hosts were literally texting Trump’s chief of staff on January 6th to give their opinions on what Trump should do. Fox hosts were literally texting Trump’s press Secretary to coordinate the narrative moving forward after January 6th. Not one example you provided or could possibly provide would come anything close to this.
Meanwhile it was discovered that Chris Cuomo was helping his own brother through his scandals and he gets fired for it. There is no greater example of the stark difference between the networks. Not one Fox News host was even considered for discipline despite far more egregious conflicts of interest. But that’s because they weren’t conflicts, nothing they did violated Fox‘s values. That’s the difference here.
Year-over-year, the most factual network changes according to quizzes of the general public. But as of 2021 Fox News viewers are the most informed. This aligns with my statement that, currently, Fox News is more accurate than CNN:
Ask those same viewers who won the 2020 election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) free-will is proportional to intelligence (animals and infants have less, adult humans have more)(AND) free-will is proportional to moral culpability (without free-will there is no moral culpability)(THEN) intelligence is proportional to moral culpability.
I have no idea what this has to do with our conversation.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I certainly understand, you made an argument because it felt right to you, and then when asked to back it up with actual facts you can’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
You also completely dropped the secret recordings of CNN employees blatantly stating that CNN's last objective was to "get Trump out of office" and to now focus on selling "climate change" because they can "milk that issue" for years.
The only reason any of this should matter is because CNN is “supposed to be” about journalistic integrity. Fox News isn’t even pretending anymore. When was the last time you heard their slogan “fair and balanced”?
It’s a classic double standard. If a Fox News executive was “caught” on tape saying any of these things it wouldn’t be newsworthy, we’re way passed that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Just because it is propaganda that doesn't mean other stations lie less. That's the genetic fallacy at its finest.
It’s not a fallacy because it wasn’t the point. The claim that the other networks lie more than Fox is absurd, the GOP’s mission statement is just the perfect encapsulation of how the other networks don’t compare. I mean we literally have Fox News hosts on stage at campaign events with Donald Trump and calling his chief of staff to give advice and coordinate stories. It’s not to say CNN or MSNBC are perfect, but putting them below Fox News on the journalistic integrity scale just isn’t serious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Good. They lie almost as much as CNN and MSNBC.
The proposal that resulted in Fox News was literally titled “a plan for putting the GOP on television”.
But keep telling yourself that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
so, basically, if you "feel free" then you "are free" ?
I said nothing close to that.
even if there is no way to QUANTIFY this "freedom" ?do children have "free-will" (and as such are solely and fully morally responsible for their actions) ?(IFF) children do not have "free-will" (THEN) at what point do they receive it ?how can "free-will" be measured and or verified scientifically ?do dogs have "free-will" ?does a spider have "free-will" ?
Is there a point to this? Because all you’re doing is pretending that if we don’t have specific objectively verifiable answers to every little detail we must throw our hands up in the air. Nothing about dealing with human behavior works like this, and we manage just fine.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Still waiting on that analysis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your actions are free from influence when they are made without being forced or coerced.your actions are influenced by many factors you probably don't even noticeand very few of these qualify as overt "force" or coercion
“Free from influence” is not referring to the inner workings of the mind and what if anything is causing us to make the decisions we do. We’re physical beings living in a physical universe, so of course there is always some explanation beyond that which we recognize on the surface.
When we talk about having control over our actions, the only concept we can apply is that which aligns with human experience. Anything beyond that is purely made up.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
"Ice cream is delicious"Due to one’s EMOTIONAL APPEAL of ice cream.
That’s not what an appeal to emotion is. I would explain it, but I just did. You are either not being serious or not capable of understanding complex and nuanced topics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
please explain the logic of "free-will" ?at what point are your actions free of previous influence ?
Your actions are free from influence when they are made without being forced or coerced.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
@Shila
Nothing about that topic has anything to do with appeal to emotion fallacies.Subjectivity is influenced by that.
No, it's not. These two things are not even the same category.
"Ice cream is delicious" is subjective. There is nothing about this statement that has anything to do with the appeal to emotion fallacy.
An appeal to emotion fallacy is when you attempt to use someone's emotions to convince them of the truth of an objective statement. For example "if we don't have free will then we're just a collection of atoms doing what they're programmed". The idea that we're just following our programming is grim, so this argument seeks to convince someone as to what the truth of our nature is (an objective truth) based on what they would like it to be ("I don't want to be pre programmed, so I'll believe our nature is whatever means we're not programmed").
Objectivity/Subjectivity is about the type of claim being made. Logical fallacies are about errors in the process of assessing the claim. These two do not overlap.
So why don’t you get back to the original conversation which is about what objectivity and subjectivity are, which we had to get into because of the original conversation that morality does not make sense unless it is objective.
I will as soon as the person I am responding to decides to have it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the pervasive concepts of "blame" and "guilt" and "punishment" are based on this fundamentally flawed premise
It's not a flawed premise. The problem with the free will debate is that we are taking basic concepts such as control and pretending they are not what they are. Again, if we don't have free will then whatever this conversation is about doesn't and has never applied to any human being, ever. So even talking about it is silly because as far as we are able to determine it's a completely made up concept.
Control is not a made up concept, we experience it everyday. Understanding where it comes from does not change that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this topic is fundamentalbecause it is the core of nearly all human sufferingif you deny causality, then free-will doesn't make any sense, because without causality, your actions don't necessarily lead to specific consequencesif you embrace causality, then free-will doesn't make any sense, because with causality, your actions are caused by previous eventsand if you mix the two, sometimes causality and sometimes not causality, then you can never be sure which events are caused and which are uncausedif you decide a specific event is uncaused, then free-will cannot apply, because you cannot cause (with your free-will) an uncaused eventif you decide a specific event is caused, then free-will cannot apply, because you cannot (with your free-will) cause all of the contributing causes that lead to any caused event
So no matter which way you view it, it doesn't make sense and can't apply.
So why is this conversation fundamental again?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Which isn’t a departure from subjectivity if you read the damn thread.
The only time it was discussed at all is when you asserted that the two were necessarily tied to which I ignored it because it's a nonsense assertion and not what we're talking about.
In case you forgot (which you clearly have) this conversation is about what objectivity and subjectivity are, which we had to get into because of the original conversation that morality does not make sense unless it is objective. Nothing about that topic has anything to do with appeal to emotion fallacies.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If there’s finite resources, allocation is what matters. So reallocating resources is what Dems should’ve focused on, rather than propping someone up who would’ve lost the following cycle anyways.
Please provide the analysis you are relying on to show
A) How much money the democrats are spending on each campaign that they could simply decide to shift towards the other, and
B) The analysis which shows that diverting said resources would change the outcome and give the democrats Beto instead of Joe Manchin.
I'll wait.
GOP didn’t try out of principle for the most part.
The GOP didn't try it because the filibuster is the only weapon they have to gain power. Republicans do not care about governing, so all they can do is caracature the democrats and then attack them over it. The filibuster is what keeps this strategy viable because as long as it remains neither party can get anything done so they'll never have to worry about competing on the merits of their accomplishments.
Also, you're talking about the same party that preaches family values and then elects a president who cheats on his wife with pornstars. A party who loves to waive around their little pocket constitutions while trying to end American democracy. A party that couldn't care less about a president blackmailing an ally into investigating his political opponents while supporting the impeachment of a president who lied about a blow job. Spare me your nonsense talk about principals.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
So subjectivity and morality isn’t relevant to anything we’ve been discussing?
My god dude, read the damn thread.
We were talking about objectivity and subjectivity until you suddenly switched and started focusing on appeal to emotion fallacies, which I have been explaining ever since is not relevant to our conversation.
You can't even keep up with your own objections.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Yes, and I ignored that part because it's not relevant to anything we've been discussing.
Created:
Posted in:
I've always found the free will conversation pointless. If we have it then it's settled, we can all move on. If we don't have it then not only does that change nothing, but it means that what we're actually talking about is something that no human being has ever experienced so we have no basis to point to it because we have no recognition of what we're even pointing to.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No, I’m sorry you don’t know how appeal of emotion fallacy works.
Nothing about our conversation had anything to do with appeal to emotion fallacies.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Are you implying objecting matters like morality are less debated?
I never said nor implied anything close to that. I said that subjective issues are debated all the time, and they are. Why is that so complicated? Why do I need to fend off countless strawmans everytime I state something so simple and obvious?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think he means the Democrats should have left Manchin alone and tried to get someone more reliable elected. A Congressional vote is a vote no matter what state it comes from or what color it is. As long as you are not an independent like Manchin.
It's basically what I'm getting, and it's complete nonsense. Manchin is extremely valuable to the democrats, he's a democrat holding a Senate seat in one of the reddest states in the nation. No other democrat in WV would have a chance at that seat, so without him Mitch McConnell would've been the Senate majority leader for the last two years. To claim democrats should not be fighting to support him is absurd.
Pie is just saying that the Democrat party is incompetent for relying on independents and supporting them when they could have supported a partisan.
Yes, and it's a stupid point. The democrats are playing the hand they are dealt, that's the opposite of incompetence. It's also remarkable how every criticism he's throwing at Biden and the democrats can be thrown at Trump and the republicans just the same if not worse. Not the anyone on the right cares about hypocrisy anymore.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Are you asserting that morality could be debated? Because if it could then that would make it objective by nature
People debate subjective topics all the time. I'm sorry if you don't understand how this works.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Sure, but you cannot deny that if Beto had more volunteers from the DSCC or even more money, Beto could’ve done far better. Manchin was an incumbent.
Every campaign would do better with more resources. So what? How does this prove your point?
The difference is that one side wants to claim the power to pass bills only with 50 votes + the VP. The other side refused to do it. With great power comes great responsibility
So the democrats are incompetent because many of them wanted to accomplish something with even less of a majority that the republicans wouldn't even try?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
You seemed to claim conflate sociopaths with immorality and I’m asking you is that an opinion or a fact?
Read what I wrote.
I didn't conflate anything. I explained that the opposing position to what I espoused and you questioned is a sociopath. I then said that if you are a sociopath then you are not worth my time to debate morality.
What about that is complicated?
That has nothing to do with anything I've said.Actually it does because you said you need a mind for truth, but theres a creator of the first mind and the truth value in that proves that truth existed before minds.
The "that" you are referring to is your own claim that there was a creator of the first mind. Whether that claim is true or false, it took your mind to make it and assess it, so you haven't proved a thing.
Truth cannot "exist" without a mind because the assertion of a truth claim cannot be done without a mind. The term "creator" as it is understood in English, also requires a mind. So the term "creator of the first mind" is logically incoherent.
Truth pertains to a claim being made.No, truth pertains to reality
No, it doesn't. We don't say "the roundness of the earth is true". When we say something is true, the "something" we are referring to is the claim we are assessing. Reality is what we are matching today claim to.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s not absurd to suggest a triage of WV Senate so resources can be diverted to TX Senate.
I never said it was, the absurdity is claiming that putting resources towards both races equates to "choosing" Joe Manchin over Beto.
But the fact that even middle class Joe can’t convince Joe Manchin shows how bad Joe Biden and the Democratic Party is.
And the fact that the great negotiator Donald Trump couldn't convince John McCain to go along with healthcare shows how bad Trump and the republican party is.
Where were you from 2016-2018. Dems didn’t work with GOP on anything. We called y’all out, and then moved on. We didn’t make a concerted effort to get rid of the filibuster to avoid working with Dems. We still tried to, even if y’all didn’t.
So what? You're arguing that the democrats are incompetent because they cannot gain unanimous support from every member of their party. The republicans couldn't either, so according to your logic Trump and the republicans are just as incompetent. So what is your point?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m not just referring to money lol.
Your original contention here is that democrats are somehow choosing between Beto and Joe Manchin, two individuals running for different offices in different states to be a part of different governments. You can expand your claim to be about more than money, that doesn't change the absurdity of it.
For years? Really? You’re out of your mind to believe that. He was a reliable vote for Harry Reid and then Chuck Schumer up until Joe Biden became President. What’s the thing that’s changed? Joe Biden.
Your original contention here is that Joe Manchin gets his marching orders from Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer, another absurd and objectively false claim.
He’s still a Democrat. He runs with a D next to his name. He caucuses with radicals like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
So if he suddenly decided to caucus with republicans and switch the Senate to republican control, can I then claim the republican party is incompetent every time Joe Manchin decides not to vote for anything they bring to the floor? Serious question, since this is how you seem to think it works.
I thought Joe Biden was supposed to be the great negotiator, who would get Republicans to vote for his proposals. Man can’t even control people in his own party lol. So much for working class Joe
Now this is just plain stupid.
I never claimed Joe Biden was Professor X. He doesn't control people. He's not a God, nor have I ever claimed him to be anything close to one. Notice how I do not have his face as my avatar? Cult worship is a right wing thing.
Second, the absurdity of republicans refusing to work with Biden on anything and then blaming him for failing to bring republicans to the table never ceases to amaze me. I really just wonder if republican voters are this stupid to think this criticism makes sense.
Third, if you actually believed that the greatness of the person in the oval office can magically make congress work together to achieve whatever the president wants, tell me about how that wall is going...
Stop strawmanning and accept your party cannot effectively whip votes. Dick Durbin is clearly incompetent. And so is Joe
I don't have a problem with attacking democrats for their failures, I take issue with bullshit and stupidity, especially when it comes from someone who clearly knows better. If that's the only point you wanted to make we could have a serious conversation about it instead of these cartoonish discussions you love to get into.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
which is a silly questionWhat about that question is silly?
I'm not about to sit here and explain to you or anyone else why I value the well being of other people. If you value it as well then you don't need it explained. If not then you're a sociopath and therefore not worth this conversation.
Sometimes when we talk about these things, the most basic of assumptions are challenged in order to make a deeper philosophical point. If you have such point here then stop wasting time and explain it.
It is your perogative to not care about other people, but if that's the case then you are a sociopath so discussing morality with you is a waste of time.Is that another “opinion” your expressing
No, it's the definition. Look it up.
Truth is an assessment. There is no way around that.But there’s truth pertaining to the creator of the first mind.
That has nothing to do with anything I've said.
A lack of knowledge does not change the fact that an assessment is being made nor does it impact the truth value of the assessment being made.Yes it does, it’s called an untruthful assessment.
No, it doesn't. Ignorance is a description of one's mental state. Truth pertains to a claim being made. Those are two completely different things. Einstein was wrong about a lot of things, and even Trump is right sometimes.
This is really basic stuff.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yet your party…supports ending the filibuster lol. They can’t hide behind the filibuster if they have the power to end it, but are incompetent
The republicans under Trump had the WH, Senate, and House and still couldn't get rid of the filibuster. So according to your logic they're just as incompetent.
In fact that had larger majorities than the democrats do now, so that makes them more incompetent.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
To state the obvious; Democrats don't get to choose between Beto and Joe Manchin.They actually do. If more resources were diverted from Manchin to Beto, you would have a far reliable vote. It’s obvious to me that you’d want Beto over Manchin, just as an example.
Campaign funds to not determine who wins. Just ask Jeb Bush.
And even if they did, your claim is still nonsense. Each candidate has their own campaigns with their own donors. No one just decides how much each campaign gets to spend.
This is not a serious argument.
They represent different states. Manchin is a democrat from one of the redest states in the country.Yet he’s still a Democrat and caucuses with Democrats. He still gets marching orders from Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.
Again, you're not stupid enough to believe this. Manchin has been a thorn in the democrats side for years and especially under Biden. He's made it clear that he couldn't care less what they want. He takes his matching orders from the people who voted for him. Anytime who's paid any attention to politics knows this.
Sinoma is from a redish/purple state democrats would have a very tough time winning of they went with anyone else. To pretend that these two individuals represent the Democratic party is just plain stupid and you know that.Democrats willingly accept them into their ranks. They put millions into their races, not the republicans. They knew full well where Manchin was from.
They accept them into their ranks and contribute to their campaigns because the alternative is a republican in that seat, and if that happens then democrats would not get to decide what comes up for a vote in the Senate.
Are you new to politics? Why do I have to explain this to you?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Regarding the second sentence, you asked me whether it is obviously true that we should care about other people and I replied "it is to me". That is a very simple way of saying it is in my subjective opinion. English 101.But you didn’t just say “it is to me” you said “Does that really need explaining?”
10.13.2022 12:40PM
“I choose well being as my standard because that’s what I value.”
Why?
Why?
10.13.2022 6:35PM
Because I care about other people. Does that really need explaining?
10.13.2022 11:15PM
“Does that really need explaining?”
Why? Because it’s so obviously true that we should care for other people?
Why? Because it’s so obviously true that we should care for other people?
10.14.2022 8:18AM
It is to me. I am well aware that many people don't, but not even those individuals would consider themselves moral.
You started the conversation off by asking me why I value well being, which is a silly question so I responded by explaining why and asked you if I really needed it to be explained. It was basically me asking you if you're being serious.
This is really simple stuff, you would understand it easily if you stop listening for trigger words and start paying attention to the actual conversation.
The first is me explaining that "well being" by itself is neither true or false because it's not a claimNo, but saying we should all value it is.
I never "claimed" we should all value it in any kind of a true/false sense. I gave you my opinion which I expressed purely as an opinion.
Moreover, you are once again jumbling two different conversations together. All I was saying there is that "well being" is not a claim. For you to take that, make up the rest of the claim and then pretend I said it is blatantly dishonest.
So for the last time; "well being" is my standard for morality. "Well being" is not a true nor false statement, it is simply a concept that I am pointing to. Because it is my standard, and is not a claim, my standard is neither true nor false and by extension, any moral claim that follows from it will never be objective since the standard itself will never be true nor false.
Now repeat everything I just said and substitute "God" in for "well being" and we have the problem with your morality as well.
As if it’s such an objective common sense notion that the question shouldn’t even be asked in the first place meaning you expected that notion from me, but that expectation should be in regards to objective facts not subjective opinions, subjective opinions have nothing to do with common sense.
It is your perogative to not care about other people, but if that's the case then you are a sociopath so discussing morality with you is a waste of time.
reality says otherwiseWhich is what truth is in regards to, not an assessment an ignorant mind makes (e.g. the earth is flat) like you said before.
I just explained this. Did you read it?
Truth is an assessment. There is no way around that. Without a mind doing the assessing there are no concepts to consider nor any assertion of truth to be made.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. A lack of knowledge does not change the fact that an assessment is being made nor does it impact the truth value of the assessment being made.
Asserting someone else's ignorance is you're own assessment. Doesn't make it true.
This is all really basic stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Hitler was also the pioneer of what we now know as cancel culture, as in organised censorship of all media in a nation.
Cancel culture is where the people within a society become collectively repulsed by particular behavior such that anyone who engages in it loses their public appeal. Media organizations are following these queues, they're not instigating them nor are they taking orders from some sort of overlord.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You and the party helped these people get elected knowing full well they are like that. More so in the case of Manchin. Man has flip flopped his entire life. Is it worth it to spend resources to uphold Joe Manchin who doesn’t vote with you, or go all in on Beto O’Rourke who would do anything you asked. I know the answer to that question. Do you?
You aren't dumb enough or ignorant enough to believe the nonsense you just typed, so I'll chalk this up to another round of you arguing in bad faith to not let the other side "win", as you have proclaimed yourself to do.
To state the obvious; Democrats don't get to choose between Beto and Joe Manchin. They represent different states. Manchin is a democrat from one of the redest states in the country. Sinoma is from a redish/purple state democrats would have a very tough time winning of they went with anyone else. To pretend that these two individuals represent the Democratic party is just plain stupid and you know that.
Created:
“It is not a truth statement so it does not have a truth value.”
“it’s so obviously true that we should care for other people?”
Which one is it?
First of all, asking which one is it makes absolutely no sense because these two statements have nothing to do with each other. The first is me explaining that "well being" by itself is neither true or false because it's not a claim, it's a thing we are using to judge actions against.
Regarding the second sentence, you asked me whether it is obviously true that we should care about other people and I replied "it is to me". That is a very simple way of saying it is in my subjective opinion. English 101.
If one thing is clear in our discussions it's that you seem to be incapable of absorbing nuance. Everything to you must be one thing all the time or something else all the time. Reality is not that simple. Something can be true in one sense and not true in another so context has to be understood and taken into account.
This is the case when we talk about truth and objectivity. As I started to say before, truth is nothing more than an assessment we make. There's generally two different types of truth; I'll label them internal and external.
Both types of truth follow the same process; it's a comparison between a statement and on object. If the two match, we call that true. If not we call it false. The difference between internal and external is what we are comparing the statement to.
External truth is when a statement is compared to reality. i.e. "the earth is flat". To address this statement we recognize the definitions of earth and flat, form a concept of it, and then check that concept against reality to see if it matches.
Internal truths are when a statement matches to it's own premises. If we're playing basketball and I score more points than you I win. The statement is true because the premises include the fact that the person who scores more points wins.
External truths are objective, full stop. Internal truths are only objective within their own premises, but the premises can be changed. There is nothing that says the person who scores the most points wins, that's a human construct so it can change and in fact we have invented many games where the opposite is true. It is whatever we say it is.
Before I continue, what part of this do you not understand or take issue with?
So if someone were to assess that the earth was flat does that make it true?
It does in their mind, but reality says otherwise, at least according to my mind and I'm willing to bet yours.
The fact that a statement is objectively true does not mean every person will believe it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't the Democrats in Congress had the full power to pass any legislation they want up to now?
No, you are wrong. Passing legislation through congress requires a way around the filibuster.
Not to mention; no political party is a monolith. In this case we have two senators who do not share the views of the party and stand with republicans most of the time. To blame the entire party for what these two individuals do knowing the rest of the party is against them is just plain stupid.
Why would you throw your hands up in the air and say "Oh the Democrats are powerless"?
Another example of you just making shit up.
Essentially, you are making the claim that democracy is irrelevant because the people you vote for are powerless
No, our system of government is broken as long as the filibuster remains in effect. System of government and democracy are not the same thing.
More to the point though, the solution here is to vote more democrats into office so that the party isn't beholden to whatever Kirsten Sinoma and Joe Manchin will agree to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Technically Biden hasn't started a war yet, but between Iran, China, and Russia, I am hoping he catches a break.
So in other words, you concocted an imaginary scenario in your head and are now holding Biden responsible for it. Got it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nothing says democracy like a good ole world war eh? Democracy at the end of a barrel of a gun?
Sorry, I missed your post ranting about Trump putting the US on the brink of war when he starting threatening to nuke North Korea on Twitter or when he ordered and bragged about the assassination of Iran's secretary of defense. Perhaps you can point me to those.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You donating to Democrats = you risking our democracy.
Right, donating to the side trying to save our democracy = risking our democracy.
Great logic there ILP5
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's very little they can do legislatively, especially since the entire republican party is in the tank on this.
No one (at least on the left) is talking about civil war. That's a right wing thing. What we're talking about is winning at the ballot box to keep these crackpots away from deciding American elections.
Created: