Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The distinction between what you are identifying as theism vs diesm is not relavant to the definition of atheism and specifically whether it's simply a lack of belief.
I find it bizarre that you sperate deism and theism when a deist is by definition, someone who believes in a god.
The difference you are highlighting here is not about beliefs vs non beliefs, you're talking about religion vs non religion. The discission over the definition of atheism is far more broad.
You are correct that deism and atheism are functionally indistinguishable in the sense of what is practically observable. But when it comes to their beliefs these are very different. Deists attribute existence and the everything we see to a god. Atheists do not. That is the central question our species has been contemplating since we developed the ability to contemplate it, and deists outlook on it is the complete opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
theistˈθiːɪstnouna person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
That's just one definition, I can pull ten others from credible dictionaries that define it otherwise.
It's not worth getting into the semantic debate here, define them however you want. The bottom line is that you either believe in a god or you do not believe in a god, and there is no functional difference between simply not believing in a god and believing there are no gods. So anyone who says I don't believe in a god but I believe (insert idea X here) is talking about something that is not relavant to this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Republicans are facing a historic blowout
Is this what they're saying on right wing media?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Republicans will definitely hold the house. The political climate and party-in-power effect give them the advantage, but the part the Dems won't be able to overcome is the gerrymandering. Funny how the party claiming elections are rigged maintain a systemic advantage.
I predict the Dems hold the Senate. The republican candidates in the crucial races are complete whack jobs and polling shows this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REALProposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REALwhich do you accept and which do you reject ?I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly acceptclaims of truth to proposition A.
Why would you reject a proposition that something which was clearly made up does not exist?
What you're arguing here is that the default position is everything exists until you have evidence it doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
the contention here is that "atheism" is not the ONLYalternative to "theism"it's a false dichotomyrejecting a false dichotomy does not imply one accepts "the opposite" of the false dichotomynon-theism could be DEISM or PANTHEISM or MONISM or GNOSTICISM or even APATHEIST ("i don't care if a theistic god exists or not")many of these people do not self-identify as "atheist"but probably could still qualify for technical "atheism" if one understands "atheism" to be "not-a-theist"Except Double_R alluded to the Law of Excluded Middle which he believes determines the truth values of proposition A and B independent of belief.
Deists and pantheists are theists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If you want your arguments challenged, then you have to stress-test them. And one manner in which you can stress test your argument is through reduction. I'm doing nothing more than interrogating your position. Are you capable of explaining your arguments?
It has nothing to do with capability. You wouldn't be asking me these silly questions if you didn't see something wrong, all I'm asking is to start contributing to the conversation by pointing out what you see so that I know I'm not wasting my time with elaborate answers that are irrelevant.
We started off talking about the definition of Atheism and worked our way to flat earth examples to show the difference between a statement of one's mindset vs reality. You can convince yourself that I'm afraid to answer your questions all you want, I've entertained this far longer than most would have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Good idea. How would you explain it to a five year-old?
I'm not here to explain things to five year olds, I'm here to discuss issues with people who can challenge my arguments. I'm fine with answering questions, but we've gotten to the point where you've asked me to explain the difference between describing one's bmindset vs describing reality, how the scientific method tells us what's true, and what makes A and not A the only two options.
If you want to continue this conversation you need to participate in it. I've had the presuppositional apologetics debate many times and I find it interesting, but not when I'm talking to someone who just keeps asking "why" over and over again without offering anything.
You have my answers. Address them if you'd like to continue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
evidence of what exactly ?
Im going to respond to this question in detail, but until you have something more to contribute to the conversation other than these pointless one liners this will be my last post on this.
The claim here is that Trump intended for mob rioters to attack the US Capitol. The evidence for this claim is too long to list on detail, but I'll summarize it below:
A) Trump spent months riling up his supporters to believe the election was stolen
B) Trump is the one who announced that there would be a rally on January 6th and invited everyone to come to DC telling them "it will be wild"
C) Trump was well aware of the threat this posed but held the rally anyway telling the crowd among other things to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore"
D) While the attack was unfolding, not only did Trump do nothing to stop it, but the only actions he took were to advance the same goals as the mob including calling senators to pressure them to vote against certifying the results and inciting them further by attacking Mike Pence publicly
E) Trump made a deliberate and concerted attempt to ensure no records were kept of his activities or whereabouts while the attacks were taking place
F) To this day Trump has never separated himself from the mob. Just last week he called them "smart" for doing what they did.
A, & C are a strong indications of intent. You can't simultaneously argue that you wanted the rally to be peaceful when the central greivance is that their vote and voices of those rallying have been stolen. Also once you are made aware that there are serious threats of violence and this was not your intent, the only rational response is a significant attempt to de-escalate. No serious effort was made, quite the opposite in fact.
B demonstrates that Trump visioned an event like this. "Will be wild"? Clearly he was not expecting a normal protest
D confirms that Trump was happy to see what was happening. When you have the power and responsibility to intervene and choose not to, the only valid explanation is that you want what's happening to continue.
D & F demonstrate an alignment of goals and values between Trump and the mob
E demonstrates conciseness of guilt. You do not cover up your actions in real time unless you know they are illegal/immoral.
These 6 points are incompatible with a man who did not want the mob to do what it did. They are entirely consistent with someone who did. Applying the basic Occam's razor test, it is far more likely and far more reasonable that Trump wanted and intended for the mob to attack the Capitol than to claim he didn't. The latter is quite frankly absurd.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Voting is nice an all, but I can’t help but feel that uninformed voting is worse than uninformed people not voting. Some vetting would be nice, but I am going to wager a guess that expecting that voters should be able to read at an 8th grade level or pass high school or speak English is the “controversial” position
You can expect anything you want, putting it in practice is another matter entirely.
My father did not graduate high school and was by all means illiterate. I used to have to read him his mail. That didn't stop him from despite coming from nothing, amassing a real estate portfolio that by the time he died was worth over $2 million. He's been dead for 15 years now, yet his wife and 6 kids to this day still get checks from his accomplishments.
And as far as being informed goes, could you of the top of your head tell me the flight numbers of the 4 plains on 9/11? The times they crashed? The whereabout of various pubic officials? The messages left by the victims?
You know who could tell you all of this? 9/11 truthers. So it turns out the people "most informed" of the events of that day also tend to be the people who think the twin towers collapsed not because of the plane crashes and ensuing fires, but because of a carefully crafted controlled demolition using thermite bombs.
All that to say, there is no metric you can use to determine who is fit to vote. It doesn't matter how educated or intelligent one is, it's what you do with the information you have.
The president of the United States represents all Americans, therefore all Americans should have a right to cast a ballot.
Earlier you said uniformed people make bad decisions that impact everyone else, but every vote impacts everyone else so who are you to determine that your vote impacting them is ok but their vote impacting you is not?
If society is determine its own destiny then that includes everyone within that society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm not arguing that not accepting something = accepting the opposite. I'm suggesting that rejecting the truth of proposition A means accepting the truth of its inverse, proposition B.
These two sentences directly contradict each other.
Proposition A is "a god exists". The opposite of that is "no gods exist", which is proposition B. So if one's rejection of proposition A = acceptance of proposition B, then ones rejection of proposition A = acceptance of its opposite.
One is a description of reality, the other is a description of one's mindset.What's the difference?
I don't know why you would ask me this. Let's try this another way.
A) The earth is flat
B) John believes the earth is flat
Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
The law of excluded middleSo logic? This is independent from or mutually exclusive to belief?
Logic is how we determine what we believe, and logic has rules.
Do you believe in the laws of logic? Yes or No?
So what actions are attributable to theists, atheists, agnostics, etc. in context to their respective philosophies? Can an atheist not go to Church?
There are certain things theists do which result from their beliefs (i.e. go to church, pray, make decisions based on what they think their god wants, etc.). Yes of course atheists can do these things. We're not talking in terms of absolutes, were talking in practical terms. Practically speaking, anyone can tell whether someone is a theist or an atheist with enough exposure to that person. This isn't complicated.
Explain where I did what you're describing.You stated:Nothing, that's always been my position. I would and have argued that God does not exist either with regards to specific god claims or that it is on balance more reasonable to believe no gods exist than to believe one does.
That's where the term "on balance" comes in. That doesn't mean I accept that there are no gods or consider that conclusion reasonable, it means that I consider the claim to be more reasonable by comparison to the alternative.
These are different things.
How does the scientific method help you determine what's real as opposed to what's not real?
Ok, I'm really starting to wonder what the point of this conversation is. The questions you are asking me are basic stuff, and when I answer them you just keep asking more basic questions like a five year old asking why over and over again.
If there is a point to all this please make it. I'm not going to sit here explaining how the scientific method helps us determine what's real. You either understand that already or we have much bigger issues here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No. To "reject" is to "deny" as the two are directly synonymous; not "lack" acceptance.
To reject is to not accept.
I propose a new idea to my boss and he rejects it. All that means is he does not accept my proposal.
I ask a girl on a date, she rejects me. All that means is she does not accept my offer.
I try to give someone advice and they reject it. All that means is they do not accept what I've said to them.
There is nothing about any of these examples which necessitates that the person rejecting what was offered accepted the opposite. My boss did not necessarily go about by doing the opposite of what I proposed. The girl I asked out did not necessarily date someone else. The person rejecting my advice did not go out and do the exact opposite.
To reject simply means to not accept. Not accepting something does not = accepting the opposite.
But I have yet to learn the measures you applying in determining "resolvable" an "un-resolvable."
Because that's not relavant to our conversation.
What is the difference between "what is" and "what we believe"?
One is a description of reality, the other is a description of one's mindset.
Proposition A is either true or not true by what measure?
The law of excluded middle
Can I take it that the your tools of observation are strictly determined by the scientific method?
Yes.
If you have another method by which we can determine what is real vs. not real please share.
But why does that necessitate a distinction in "actions" which aren't necessarily excluded to any particular value system, as opposed to philosophy?
It has nothing to do with value systems. It's about what we observe within our daily lives. If we can't tell the difference between two things, there is functionally no difference.
Premising an argument based on what you believe is insufficient or absent evidence.
Explain where I did what you're describing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Im not using the absence of evidence as evidence, I'm using the effort made to ensure no recording of the event took place as evidence.
Why is this so confusing to you?
Again, under any normal circumstance we would have all of this information. The WH photographer is literally paid to record major moments in the president's term. This was a major moment, yet there are no photos.
WH call logs showing who the president spoke to are normal records that are supposed to be maintained.
A calendar showing the president's activities is supposed to be maintained.
WH aids testified that concealing all of this was a deliberate and concerted effort.
That's evidence.
An example of the absence is evidence being used as evidence is the claim that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon because the government won't release the tapes (even though they did). This is a fallacy because there is no reason for the government to release what the conspiracy theorists are looking for even if they had them.
Two completely different things.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
@oromagi
Getting rid of the Electoral College might be considered radical policy-wise.I don't think that should even be controversial- as much a unnecessary holdover from agrarian thinking as daylight savings or pickup truck subsidies
Crazy how the notion of one person one vote is "controversial"...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Epistemologically, rejecting proposition A is the same as accepting proposition B.
False. To reject something is to not accept it. To not accept proposition A does not necessitate an acceptance of proposition B, I already gave you the example of this being done, i.e. I consider the question of whether a god exists to be unresolvable. That position rejects both propositions as unsupported by the evidence.
Your arguments attempt to bypass this by sustaining some notion of "metaphysical objectivity"--i.e. "what is actually true"--while designating the existence of God(s) as "yet to be determined."
I've argued nothing regarding some "metaphysical objectivity", you made that up.
I'm talking about the difference between what is vs. what we believe and how we talk about that difference.
Once again, proposition A is either true or it is not true. That's it, those are the only two options. When it comes to what we believe however, there are three possibilities;
I believe A is true
I believe A is not true
I have not determined whether I believe A is true or not true
Theism/atheism are labels we put on people to tell us what their beliefs are, so the actual truth of the proposition is a seperate topic from how we determine what labels are appropriate.
What would you need to resolve this? How would you describe "access"?
That depends on how it's being defined. Pretty much every serious attempt to define god I've ever heard includes at minimum that he exists "outside of time and space". So as a physical being existing within time, the concept of verifying whether something even could let alone does exist outside of time is completely incoherent. And existing outside of space requires us to be able to verify that which exists outside the observable universe. The term "observable" is there for a reason, that's as far as we can see our know in any way is there.
So for starters, find me a way to explore what lies beyond the observable universe and coherently explain not only how something can possibly exist outside of time but also how we can demonstrate that it actually does.
Why would this matter if we're discussing definitions and the premise/construction of one's beliefs?
It matters to the question of how we should define the term "atheist" because if what theists tend to recognize as atheists vs agnostics has no functional difference in our society then it is practically useless for us to bother distinguishing them.
Perhaps not, but by your own rationale, you would have provided a misguided argument.
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's not an argument from ignorance. When someone goes out of their way to ensure no records of their whereabouts or actions are documented, that's because they don't want people to know what they're doing. And when someone doesn't want people to know what they're doing, it's because they have something to hide.
This common sense, which is the opposite of ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Is there a difference between what you state is shorthand for "lacks belief in the existence of any deities," and "does not imply a belief that deities certainly do NOT exist"?
One has nothing to do with the other.
Proposition A: "a god exists"
Proposition B: "no gods exist"
Per the law of excluded middle, one of these propositions must be true and the other must be false. But that is about what's actually true. We're talking about beliefs.
When it comes to one's beliefs the same cannot be said. Believing one is true does logically require the other to be false, but not accepting one of these propositions as true does not mean the other is accepted as true.
I reject proposition A on the basis that it lacks sufficient evidence. I also reject proposition B on the basis that it lacks sufficient evidence.
So back to your question, "lacks belief in the existence of any dieties" is a statement describing one's mindset towards proposition A. It has nothing to do with proposition B.
3RU7AL's statement at the end is talking about proposition B.
They're different propositions.
And what are your measures in determining that God's existence is without resolution? How do you resolve one's existence?
I consider it irresolvable because the central claim is that there exists a being occupying a realm of reality that we have no access to. If we have no access to it then we could not possibly demonstrate whether anything is there.
You're now saying that this is about actions,
No, you asked me about functionality, which is about actions, so of course my answer would be as well.
Functionality and disbelief/lack of belief come together because the subject is the definition of atheism. When it comes to how the word should be thought of to mean, the distinction between disbelief/lack of belief and the functional differences are two different arguments supporting the same position. The functionality argument is that there is no distinguishable difference between disbelieving and lacking belief with regards to how one lives their life, therefore there is no need to categorize them differently.
What changed?
Nothing, that's always been my position. I would and have argued that God does not exist either with regards to specific god claims or that it is on balance more reasonable to believe no gods exist than to believe one does. Neither of those conflict with the position I stated here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Those wasn't like any other protest. These were people assembled by the president of the United States in response to his claims that American democracy had been hijacked by evil and nefarious forces within the US Capitol. The idea that they were just there to peacefully protest is absurd on it's face. What good is protesting to people who just stole your voice because they didn't give a rats ass about what you wanted?
But common sense aside, the intelligence was there that this was going to be more than just a protest. That's why you have people like ILP5 leading the charge to investigate Nancy Pelosi. They love having their cake and eating it too, but if congress had this intelligence then so did the president, and he held the rally anyway. That tells us lot.
And so does the fact that Trump did nothing for over 3 hours while all of this was unfolding. Not one phone call to anyone, not the secretary of defense, not to Homeland security, no one (except for his buddies in Congress to not certify the results, the exact same thing the protesters wanted). If you are the president and you make a conscious decision to do nothing while an attack was going on there is only one reason; because you want it to continue.
And then there is three fact that no one was allowed to keep any record on Trump's whereabouts through those whole period. The WH photographer was not allowed to photograph him, no recording devices were allowed anywhere near him, the call logs were wiped, his calendar was wiped... Literally all scrubbed. You don't do that unless you have something to hide.
This isn't close.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Lol why are you posting to Pie in a clear response to a point that *I* made?
They always do that, every time one replies to me they put their buddies all on it. I think they're dating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"I can't believe Trump didn't plan this"... Therefore... What?therefore, trump planned this
The argument that Trump planned this comes from the mountains of evidence we've known about and have recently learned from the J6 committee.
Trump is the one who announced the rally on J6 saying it will "be wild".
Trump's own aids testified that he planned to lead them to the Capitol and that he wanted the metal detectors gone because in his words; they weren't there to hurt him.
While all this was going on, Trump sat in thhe dining room watching it all unfold on TV. During the three hours the country watched in horror, not one phone call was made to anyone to ensure federal resources were being deployed. Mike Pence had to do it from a bunker.
To this day Trump said the reason they did what they did is because"they are smart".
There's plenty more, but that's the gist of it. The idea that anyone thinks Trump planned this purely because they cannot believe otherwise is ridiculous.
Do better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
All the evidence is there. Gas prices were 2.20 when Biden hit office. They hit 4.85 with all his rhetoric and policy actions. They are now decreasing because of recession fears. What quantity do you want? No one keeps count on how much prices rose because Biden cut of Keystone Pipeline. (Besides oil companies, whose futures are constantly moving because it is a fluid market.)
That's not evidence, that's a classic correlation/causation fallacy.
You are the one claiming Biden is responsible for the bulk of gas price increases. So what you would need at the most basic level to substantiate that claim, is some basic math on how much his specific actions have contributed.
And not only do you not even bother to contribute the most basic requirement of substantiation, you ignore what nearly every expert out there will tell you is the cause: global disruption in production resulting from a global pandemic. It's kind of common sense that this would be the main culprit, especially considering that gas is a global market.
But you ignore the latter entirely. Why? Could it be because you are a hopeless partisan incapable of considering anything that hurts you're preferred narrative?
To the contrary. They’re smart. And that’s how futures work, whether you like it or not.
You act as if oil prices are based on what investors think oil will be worth 10 years from now. That's not how it works. Almost all of the policy actions you point to have no immediate effect on gas production, most will take 5-10 years to make any difference at all. To claim this is why prices rose so sharply so quickly is absurd. Biden may not even be president in two years. Investors understand that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
well, i certainly don't share your view of the termand a little research shows that your interpretation of that particular term only became popularized in the 1980s
That was 40 years ago. Please explain how that makes you're point and not mine.
and, you're ignoring the fact that you're making an implicit argument that - - because you perceive your interpretation as popular, that means i SHOULD agree, which is, the very essence of argumentum ad populum
No, I'm making the argument that because the vast majority of people perceive the word in this way, that is what we should understand as the default position what people are talking about when they use the term.
The fallacy in argumentum ad populum is presuming X is true because people say it is. It is not a fallacy when X is literally defined as "whatever people say it is".
In case you didn't realize this, that's how all words work.
Give me one example.the usage of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies"i can't believe that trump didn't plan this"
You're not even trying, so I don't understand why you bother.
"I can't believe Trump didn't plan this"... Therefore... What?
Could you at least present the argument?
And then, the part that actually matters... Can you point to where I committed this fallacy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
wait a minute, are you suggesting Double_R is "one of the elite" ?!
lol yep. Another right wing thought terminating cliche...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Regarding what we both said, both statements affirm that Russia interfere in our election.No one denies this.Welcoming help from a foreign adversary is not conspiracy.So what’s your pointOrganizing your campaign around what you anticipate a foreign adversary is going to do is not conspiracy.So what’s your point
You asked me if I was calling Mueller a liar by saying what I said, so I'm pointing out that nothing I said contradicts anything he said. In other words, your implication was BS.
Court of public opinion only matters for a month.
Another revealing moment.
The court of public opinion is where the citizens of a country look at what's happening and apply basic logic and common sense to determine what they believe. You engage in this even as you pretend you don't.
But you have managed to twist yourself in such logic pretzels that even after it's pointed out to you, you still cannot tell the difference between the rules and high standards that must be applied in order to address the question of whether one gets to maintain their freedom, vs the standards that are needed to determine whether one gets to enjoy the public's trust.
You and I are not jurors on a court of law. We're members of a debate forum giving our opinions. Unless the topic is law (which it's not), the rules of a court of law have nothing to do with this conversation. I've made this clear to you repeatedly.
The topic here is whether it is reasonable, in the court of public opinion, to to presume the president was deserving of the attention he got when it came to his relationship with Russia and whether the circumstances warrant us to doubt whether he was acting in the country's best interest. You do not need proof sufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in order to use your own brain. But again, when the facts are not on your side...
Created:
Posted in:
Does 3RU7AL's statement not conflict with yours?
No, it doesn't.
When I say lacks belief in the existence of any dieties, I am saying the person does not believe a diety exists. That is very different from saying one lacks any belief with regards to the question of whether a god exists (explained in detail in post 93).
does lacking a belief in God necessarily suggest that one maintains that God does not exist?
No. One can very easily conclude (as I have) that the question of whether a God exists is irresolvable.
There are no "actions" here since the subject of our discussion is focused on their beliefs anyway. That is, what they "do" has nothing do with anything physical/material. So once again, is a lack of belief and disbelief functionally indistinguishable or not? If so, how?
I don't understand your question. Functionality has to do with actions or that which can be observed. If no difference can be observed, then they are indistinguishable. If they are indistinguishable, then they are functionally the same.
If we really want to dive deep however, on a philosophical level I would say there is a big difference because our beliefs do not live in a vacuum. If one accepts logically fallacious thinking towards one subject that will likely carry over to others. In my view, the assertion that there are no gods is misguided because I don't believe there is any way to support that statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
They are not going to magically become reasonable if trump disappears; and given that they are large enough that to become elected, not being an extreme radical is often detrimental to the election prospects of politicians on the right wing.
I'm not suggesting they will become reasonable, I'm saying Desantis will not have the ability to convince them that the sky is green the way Trump has. The thing about Trump is that they love him because he's one of them. He's a complete buffoon and an ignoramous, so when he says something stupid he gets away with it because that's already his brand and because he gives them validation. No other politician can pull that off. Desantis is too intelligent, so the level of stupidity that has to be achieved for him would come off as fake and disingenuous, the very thing Trump supporters love about him and the reason they let him get away with literally anything.
This isn't just a Desantis thing. Look around, every politician that tries to act like Trump comes off the same way, and none of them can gain any national appeal. Desantis is the closest thing, but his brand is still completely different.
So again, I'm not saying they won't vote for him, I'm just saying that he won't have the same kind of pscophantic support Trump did, which will be needed to accomplish what Trump couldn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The facts indisputably show that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, the Trump campaign welcomed that help, and to some extent they organized their campaign around the help Russia was providing.There is nothing corrupt or dishonest about acknowledging this and reasonably speculating as to how far it went.That’s not what Saint Mueller said.The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”So you calling Bob Mueller a liar?
No, because nothing Mueller said contradicts anything I said.
First all, “did not find” evidence does not = “we found evidence of innocence”.
Second, Trump never spoke to Mueller because he refused. Apparently when you’re the president the law doesn’t apply to you.
Third, when Trump practiced his testimony with his own attorneys they told him if he testified he’d end up in an Orange jumpsuit. Again; his attorneys.
Regarding what we both said, both statements affirm that Russia interfere in our election.
Welcoming help from a foreign adversary is not conspiracy.
Organizing your campaign around what you anticipate a foreign adversary is going to do is not conspiracy.
So once again, you’ve taken the intentionally high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and are applying it to a conversation based in the court of public opinion. When you have no defense against the facts, this is what you have to stoop to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
except for the word "atheist" apparently
The debate you are referencing was explicitly about what the word atheist *should* be accepted to mean.
This conversation is about what the term “conspiracy theory” *does* mean.
Two completely different conversations.
all of these apply to your january sixth conspiracy theory
Give me one example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
argumentum ad populum
We’re talking about what a word means. Guess how we figure that out? By looking at how other people use the word.
you claim that you provided specificsand even referred to a specific post you madethat did not provide any specifics
Why is this so difficult? We’re talking about what makes one’s insinuations a “conspiracy theory”. I gave you multiple examples. How much more specific do I need to be? Would you like me to provide further examples of these fallacies in action? Let’s look at post 583… again:
“conspiracy theories in the colloquial sense are epitomized by certain errors of logic and futilely invalid processes of thinking; the expansion of the theory to include all evidence presented against it, the usage of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies, the usage of the absence of evidence as evidence, and the refusal to provide a clear narrative instead pretending they’re “just asking questions” when it is clear they are making strong insinuations.”
oh, goodi thought you believed in the conspiracy theory of january sixthi'm ever so glad we cleared that up
Now I think you’re just trolling, there is no way you, in good faith, don’t get this by now.
I’ve challenged you repeatedly and then pointed out repeatedly how you’ve ignored every challenge I’ve given you to explain how anything I’ve argued for regarding J6 qualifies under what I just explained is a conspiracy theory. If you are not going to engage in the conversation you can stop replying to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, I would say the Democrats are worse
Then you don’t live in reality. Of the two parties only one actually cares about democracy while the other is overtly hostile to it. No one with an IQ above room temperature would confuse which party is which.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Novice_II
I think the Democratic party is much more corrupt as well. We saw this with the Russian collusion conspiracy theory spread by them just 5 years ago when Trump took office.
Trump’s campaign chairman gave their internal polling data to the Russians.
Trump’s son took a meeting with someone who represented themselves as working “on behalf of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”. When they told him they had dirt on Hillary his reply was “if it’s what you say, I love it”.
The day that meeting was scheduled to take place Trump said he would have a major announcement on the Clintons. As we now know, the meeting turned out to be a dud and coincidentally, Trump never made his blockbuster announcement.
Almost every high ranking member of the Trump campaign had multiple contacts with Russians. Almost none of those contacts were disclosed.
Trump met with Putin one on one with no Americans in the room other than a translator. Trump then personally took the translator’s notes and destroyed them. No president in our lifetimes has ever done that.
Those are just a few incontestable facts off the top of my head, there are so much more.
No one is claiming that the Trump campaign and the Russian government were having daily zoom meetings to organize their agenda. The facts indisputably show that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, the Trump campaign welcomed that help, and to some extent they organized their campaign around the help Russia was providing.
There is nothing corrupt or dishonest about acknowledging this and reasonably speculating as to how far it went.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
in other words, what you personally consider "the colloquial sense"
No, it’s what the vast majority of society thinks it means:
“A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.
Or how about googling articles on conspiracy theories:
“What drives belief in such conspiracy theories? While in earlier decades belief in conspiracy theories often was dismissed as pathological (Hofstadter, 1966), accumulating evidence reveals that conspiracy theories are common among surprisingly large numbers of citizens. The potential impact and breadth of conspiracy theories was underscored in 2016, when Donald Trump was elected US President despite propagating a range of highly implausible conspiracy theories throughout his campaign. These theories included allegations that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, that Barack Obama was not born in the US, and that vaccines cause autism. The social sciences have increasingly recognized the importance of understanding conspiracy beliefs, and empirical research on this phenomenon has proliferated in the past decade.
Google any article on conspiracy theories and show me which ones are not using the colloquial definition I am. Notice how every article on them asks the same question: “why do people believe in conspiracy theories?”. That alone proves my point, if what people were talking about was something reasonable that question wouldn’t need to be asked.
exactly which part of this is your "strong defense" ?
The part where you apply what I said to the conversation. If you are unwilling to do that it’s not on me that you still don’t understand this.
the "burden-of-proof" is on the party making the claim
I’ve been preaching this for years, and nothing I’ve said here or anywhere in this site has suggested or implied otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Novice_II
Neither side is
That doesn’t make them equal
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't see any Republican yet attempting to eliminate the opposition.
This is a joke right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
rules for thee not for me
Do you read any of the threads you respond to? Or do you just see someone replying to a lib and think “yeah get him”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
which highlights "the problem" with accusing someone of "conspiracy theory"this january sixth thing certainly qualifies
I just explained in detail why Jan 6th does not qualify.
Read post 583 again. Take note of how I laid out all of the characteristics that epitomize a conspiracy theory.
Then take note of how I challenged you to show me how any one of those characteristics apply to January 6th.
Then take note of your complete silence until re-emerging to make the same claim I already refuted for which you had no response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’ve answered this multiple times lol. You just refuse to listen or fail to understand how economics and oil futures work
No, you haven’t. You listed a few things Biden did that were “bad”, but failed to mention the part that actually matters and I’ve asked you for repeatedly; to quantify the impacts of any of the things you mentioned. Never asked for an exact figure, but some kind of reasonable estimate we can use to advance the conversation. Unsurprisingly, you’ve offered nothing.
If gas prices went up $3 a gallon and Biden is responsible for 35 cents, I’m not interested in hearing what you’re talking about. You’re the one claiming he’s responsible. Support your damn claim.
And the whole forties futures thing is especially entertaining. Essentially your argument was that Biden is responsible because of the things he said he was going to do, thereby freaking out the entire market. I mean, you really think investors are this stupid.
If it’s all about futures and what someone says then you just undercut your own argument on why Trump was so good. You keep excusing his conduct because of his policies but also according to you his policies on this do not matter since it’s all about what investors feel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean there will be another Republican president at some pointI think the left is so fucked up with the crazy fringe people that they truly want the country to be one party like California and New York.
And the political right is what, a model of accepting electoral defeat?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I was never that worried about Trump, as much as I have been as to whether an intelligent, Trump like figurehead would come next, and utilize these cultivated aspects of the party into means to really cease power.
But that’s the part of it I just don’t see.
The gist of your post to summarize, and I’ll use an analogy here, is that Trump carried the Republican Party about 70% of the way before being stifled by his own incompetence, so now a capable fascistic leader just needs to carry the party the other 30%, give or take. The problem I see is that much of that 70% collapses without Trump.
What makes Trump unique and remarkable is that he has managed to maintain two contradictory brands at the same time; (1) that’s he’s some sort of business genius and (2) that he’s an ignorant buffoon. Because of this he gets away with things no other politician ever could. If Desantis went around claiming he really won the election he could not pass himself off as being dumb enough to believe it. At least not to the middle of the road voter.
This is why candidates who go full in on Trumpism don’t do well as soon as they need to appeal to a mainstream audience; they will always run into this dilemma. I just don’t see anyone else being able to carry that mantle. Anyone else trying will come off to the masses as a wannabe dictator instead of that goofy uncle like figure in Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
President Joe Biden's approval rating is lower than Donald Trump's was at the same stage of his presidency, as the Democrats are bracing for potential major losses in this year's midterm elections.Biden's approval rating was 39 percent as of June 30, according to analysis by poll tracker FiveThirtyEight, while 56.2 percent of Americans disapproved of the way the president is handling his job.Trump's approval rating on July 1, 2018, was 41.8 percent, while 52.3 percent of Americans disapproved of him, figures from FiveThirtyEight show.In 2018, Republicans suffered a major defeat in the midterm elections and lost 40 seats in the House of Representatives, handing control to the Democrats and allowing Nancy Pelosi to return as speaker.The midterms that year took place on November 6. By that point, Trump's approval rating was 41.9 percent, compared to disapproval level of 52.8 percent.However, the president's approval rating is only one factor in the midterms and though it plays a role in voters' choices, other issues are likely to influence the outcome of the 2022 elections, including high inflation, the state of the economy and the recent landmark Supreme Court ruling on abortion.The prospects for Democrats look bleak in FiveThirtyEight's generic congressional ballot, which shows Republicans enjoying 44.8 percent support to the Democrats' 42.7 percent - a narrow, but potentially crucial lead of 2.1 percent.Republicans are likely to focus on issues such as the cost of living crisis in their midterm campaigns and take aim at Biden's handling of the economy. The president's unpopularity could give Republican candidates a boost in close races.
lol Oromagi was right:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Gonna be funny when the Trump DOJ goes after Hunter and Joe after 2024. You reap what you sow.
So investigating a president who tried to overthrow an election and invited a mob to attack the US Capitol gives good reason for republicans to investigate a president for anything?
Interesting logic there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I give him credit for bringing us to the highest inflation rate ever and then driving us straight into a recession. Even Jimmy Carter wasn’t this bad
You’re right, not even Jimmy Carter could destroy the entire global economy including drastically raising global gas prices in just a few short months. And he even managed to start the trend before he took office. It’s quite impressive.
What did he do to reduce prices?
What did he do to raise prices globally? Funny how only the latter question needs a serious answer to inform your opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
I give him credit for selling oil from the strategic reserves to China. 20 million barrels worth. During an emergency crisis.
Why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?
“For each sale, the Energy Department announces the type and amount of oil from the four SPR sites that will be auctioned in a competitive bidding process. By law, the contracts are awarded to the companies that make the highest bids, and any company that is registered in the SPR’s Crude Oil Sales Offer Program is eligible to make an offer.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Funny how when gas prices go up it’s all Biden’s fault, but when they go down he gets none of the credit for it.
Created:
Posted in:
So as many on the left would argue, Trump may be an embarrassment to the country and poor gasoline on every fire, but he’s an incompetent buffoon so when it comes to policy accomplishments he’s impotent. Desantis on the other hand is very smart and will be able to legislate a lot of the nonsense Trump talks about, so Desantis is more dangerous.
I must say I disagree with this. I get what people are talking about here but what I think they fail to take into account is that Trump may be an incompetent buffoon but he has changed the political landscape like no other politician I’ve ever seen or am aware of. Almost half the country now believes the election was stolen, that was unthinkable 6 years ago. White nationalists no longer feel the need to hide and politicians no longer feel like reality matters. Just say whatever you want and your base will follow.
If Trump gets another term he will completely gut all of our institutions and install loyalists all the way down the agencies. He will completely destroy our government from within, and the Trump cultists will cheer him on the whole way.
So while I think he has no real chance at 2024, I say Trump is worse. Wondering who disagree and why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The comment section should play no role in the debate whatsoever unless for some odd reason it’s usage is specified in the debate description.
I do think concessions in general seem to be a problem in this site though. When someone ignores their opponent’s central case that should count against them.
I also think voter bias is also a big problem here. Who you agree with should play no role in voting unless your position was changed within the debate, something we all know almost never happens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Whether something can come from nothing depends entirely on your definition of nothing.
If you are defining nothing as “non-existence” or some concept derived from this idea (“nothing is what rocks dream about”), then of course nothing could come from it, because it’s being defined that way. So to claim nothing can come from it is just a tautology.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
My intuition is that a lot of real life gun control advocates would still advocate for more gun control even knowing what we know above about the other island. If number of guns are not to blame,.
So essentially, you created an imaginary scenario where the guns couldn’t be the cause of gun violence and are asking gun control advocates whether they’d still support gun control.
I’m really not sure what the point of this exercise is. The fact is that gun statistics are not worth a whole lot because society it turns out is a massively complex thing, so there is almost no such thing as an apples to apples comparison. This is why nearly every gun debate devolves into a your statistics vs my statistics battle, and anyone who decides to engage in this seriously will likely spend hours digging up reasons to reject the other’s statistics while upholding theirs and in the end, no one budges on their position. I think this is because almost no one actually bases their position on the statistics. It’s all about how we see guns and its relationship to society. That’s what determines which set of statistics we will accept.
For me it normally comes down to one very simple idea: more guns = more gun violence. I don’t know how anyone can attempt to refute that with a straight face.
Yet when you really break down gun advocates arguments to their core, they’re essentially arguing that more guns = less gun violence. That’s patently absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
So in case anyone was watching yesterday, it turns out Trump’s actions on January 6th were exactly what we thought… while the US Capitol was being attacked by a mob forcing congress to evacuate, Trump was watching the whole thing play out on Fox News and made absolutely zero effort to stop it.
When would someone in a position to stop something make no effort to do so? Because that was exactly what he wanted to happen. That’s basic common sense and refutes every argument made by those who claim Trump didn’t want violence.
That’s it. That’s all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So all of Biden's policies are good. It's just the rest of the world that's preventing his policies from working. In other words if there was no covid and no Ukraine we would be flourishing under Biden's policies?
No. Not everything has to be one extreme or the other.
What I actually said was that it didn’t really matter who the president was. Inflation and high gas prices would be the case regardless as they are all over the world. That has nothing to do with whether I think Biden’s policies are good, I never weighed in on that.
President’s get way too much of the credit and the blame for what happens during their term. The biggest area they control is foreign policy, yet everyone pretends they’re in complete control over domestic and economic issues. That’s just not how it works, especially in a capitalistic society that is more and more interconnected to the global economy.
Created: