Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
hence why I’m taking your quotes and using them against you.
No, you’re demonstrating your lack of understanding of everything I’ve said. Case and point:
Conflating two things does not have to be explicitComing from the guy that also saidBut that’s a deduction you’re making, that’s not what the message the person speaking is pointing to.
These two statements have nothing to do with eachother if you actually understand the context they were used in. The first was talking about how the conflation of two things can be done implicitly.
Example: “Trump shouldn’t be impeached because he had the right to ask for an investigation into Biden”.
No where on this argument does the speaker say that what is ethically right is the same thing as Trump's legal rights, but that is made implicitly clear in this argument because impeachment is a remedy for ethical violations, yet the speaker is using the fact that Trump didn't violate any laws as a reason t not impeach. That's a conflation, even if not said directly.
The second quote is further establishing the difference between the concept one is pointing to with any given sentence and their state of mind regarding that concept which you are deducing from their statement.
Example:
Person X: “the earth is round”
Person Y: “Person X believes the Earth is round"
There is nothing, repeat... Nothing, about the shape of the Earth expressed by person X that includes person X's state of mind or anything person X believes. Person Z could easily come along and utter the same statement and at no point would person X be included in the concept being conveyed.
Do you still not understand the difference between the concept of the Earth being round and the belief held by any individual regarding that concept? Hint: you do not have to believe the Earth is round to conceive of a round Earth.
No you didn’t, because you PURPOSELY AVOIDED explicitly using acceptance in your line of questioning, that’s a part of the conflation with belief, your not gaslighting anyone here.
From post 352:
The first part states “sufficient to establish a thing as true”. Do you know what that’s called when something is sufficient to establish that something is true? That’s called belief. The literal definition of belief is to accept something as true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
My point had nothing to do with the 5th amendment, I was using it as an example. This isn’t complicated…
Person A: “Did you sleep with Jane?”
Person B: “No”
Person A: “Did you sleep with Marry?”
Person B: “I can’t answer that”
Obviously, Person B slept with Marry, or at the very least it’s a reasonable inference based in the above. I’m sure there’s a term for this, but the point is that as soon as you open yourself up to answering questions about any given topic you put yourself in this situation. This is why anyone who knows anything about taking questions from the media or in legal proceedings knows that there are certain topics you cannot get into.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
How would saying that no FBI agents were directed to overthrow the government, impact their investigation?
Because, as Danielle already explained to you, when you take the position of not answering questions on a given topic, you have to not answer questions on that topic. You cannot pick and choose which questions you answer because then every non-answer becomes what is called a negative inference. If the witness is willing to answer question X but not question Y, then clearly they are hiding something on question Y. So by not answering certain questions, you are in effect answering them.
This is the exact same thing that happened in the OJ Simpson trial when Mark Furman had to come back to address his rampant use of the N word after testifying that he never uses it. To protect himself he had to plead the fifth. After it became obvious that he was going to plead the fifth for every single question no matter the question the defense got slick and asked him something irrelevant to the immediate issue… “did you plant the glove”. He had to not answer that too.
That worked with the jury because the jury was ignorant, and wanted to see past the obvious but just needed a reason to. That sound bite played into the conspiracy despite being nothing more than a technicality. The defense knew all of this but they knew they could use this to manipulate the jury, just as Ted Cruz knows better but is using this to manipulate you. And clearly it’s working.
Created:
Posted in:
…Speak for yourself there buddy, it’s interesting how you say this yet YOUR THE ONE that called the shape of the earth a concept, care to explain that one 🤔?
No. If you don’t understand what a concept is by now and the relationship between X and the concept of X you are either trolling or just not smart enough to have this conversation.
The only thing I conflated with belief was acceptance
Conflating two things does not have to be explicit, in fact in most cases it’s not. I would explain to you where and how you are conflating these two things but I have, multiple times.
it seemed like you were losing track of the narrative to suit your own (which I still don’t know what that is because your all over the place)
I’m all over the place because I’m following you. We were talking about god, which lead to why hypotheticals are used, which lead to logic and evidence, which lead to the difference between a fact vs the concept of that fact. If you understood what hypothetical examples were and why we use them this whole conversation could have been avoided.
if you were to ask me what’s the difference between the two statements I provided then I would say none at all
Correct. I’ve explained this to you already. Clearly, you are just not absorbing anything I’m saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Correct, Trump is not president. But he is by far the front runner for 2024 and by far the leading voice in today’s Republican Party. You know that, even if you pretend you don’t.
Both impeachments were doomed to fail before they even began. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with Trump’s innocence, it has everything to do with the fact that the republican party belongs to him and would have never convicted him of anything. You know that.
The legal investigations are ongoing and have already proven to any rational person that he committed the crimes. He’s literally on tape telling the GA Secretary of State to change the vote count to make him the winner, any official in the country did that they would be in jail right now. You know that.
Trump is every bit as bad as the democrats are saying. The problem is, so are his voters. That’s the problem. That’s the reason I talk about him here, to interact with some of those voters to see what they have to say about him. Except ‘but the democtats’ is all I ever get, which only validates my position further.
Trump could very well win in 2024, and with it he will do everything he can to dismantle every institution we have that keeps him in check. The man is a clear and present danger to everything the founding fathers envisioned. Whether you know that and are pretending not to, or whether you have blinded yourself to that obvious reality is what I’m still trying to figure out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Imagine asking the top law enforcement agency in the country if they participated in what they are calling an attempt to overthrow the government, and they don't reply with a stern, immediate NO.
No, they wouldn’t, because it’s not their job to refute your conspiracy theories.
As Danielle has explained to you thoroughly and repeatedly - this was a legal proceeding. The same colloquial standards that apply to you or in a conversation about who either of us slept with does not apply to an organization who’s number one priority in these proceedings is to ensure they do not give away anything that can negatively impact their investigations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Cruz then broadened his question by asking if any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the riot."Sir, I can’t answer that," she said.
Can you please explain why any FBI agent would answer this question?
Created:
Posted in:
This is a debate website. I come here to debate & argue.
So do I. There is nothing about that which suggests one should be close minded and not try to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Turns out we ask the same question about Biden. And it turns out we were right that he’d be a complete disaster
“I know you are but what am I?”. Wow. Original.
Here’s the difference; there is no Biden cult. The left attacks Biden constantly. No one I know is claiming Biden is the greatest president ever, no one is claiming he was sent by god, no one is flying down to Delaware to kiss his ring, no is going to storm the Capitol to keep him in office, and if anyone did no one is going to pretend a mob beating police officers on their way to taking over the US Capitol and forcing congress to evacuate is no big deal.
To pretend that what’s going on with Biden voters is the same as Trump voters is patently absurd and you know that. Yet you pretend not to. Why? As someone proud enough of a Trump supporter to use his face as your avatar, why can’t you ever keep the conversation on Trump? Why do you constantly deflect when confronted on your support for him to such an absurd level that you pretend to think Biden’s support is the same as Trump’s?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The shape of the earth isn’t a concept it’s a matter of fact,
I’m starting to wonder if you’re serious or just trolling.
The shape of the earth being a matter of fact, which contrasts from it being a concept, means you understand the distinction between an actual fact and a matter of what’s going on in ones mind. The very thing you’ve been pretending to not understand for the last few pages.
and the fact that you compared it to belief makes it fair game to also make the focus being your state of mind as well.
The reason I’ve been comparing it to belief is because you keep conflating it with belief, so I’ve been forced over and over again to explain to you the difference. Your inability to understand the difference (which you all of a sudden now understand) does not make it fair game to focus the conversation on something I never said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your not pointing to anything without context, which is what an implication essentially is.
Yes but you are still missing the point and I don’t know why. What you put together from a set of words is not the same thing as the concept the speaker is pointing to. If I claim the earth is round, I’m pointing to the shape of the earth. The fact that you are focused on my state of mind instead does not change the concept I am pointing to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That’s not how it works. Knowledge is a subset of belief. Knowing something doesn’t mean you don’t believe it.
The classical definition of knowledge is justified true belief. The thing about this definition is that it cannot be applied internally the same as externally.
Extremely means you are evaluating someone else’s claim as knowledge, meaning you are running through those three requirements to see if it meets them all. Are they justified? Check. Do they believe it? Check. Is it true? Check. Then it’s knowledge.
When you’re evaluating your own claim you can check the first two boxes, but by the time you get to the third you get an error message, because to check the “I believe it” box you’ve already accepted it as true, so checking the “it’s true” box becomes redundant. The definition was already completed by the time they checked “justified” and “belief”.
I call it the belief box, you can’t escape it - you can’t proclaim knowledge without proclaiming belief. This is why prepositionalists sound so absurd when they try to proclaim their knowledge as being somehow beyond belief.
So when a person says they know something, all they’re saying is they believe it and they’re justified for believing it. Colloquially, they’re just saying they believe it to the point where they don’t think to question it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
My fascination isn’t Trump, it’s the people who look at him and think “yeah, that guy should be president”. Words cannot describe how absurd that is, but yet I find myself living in a world where half the country actually believes it. Why? Is it malice? Stupidity? All these years later, I’m still trying to figure it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you work for the Trump campaign?Why do you ask Mr. I’m Not Revealing Any Information About Myself
Because you don’t come off like a real person. Every time you are confronted with the absurdity of your own positions you deflect into something irrelevant. Yet here you are telling us how great Trump is…
And then there’s your avatar…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Definition of sedition
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Every assertion implies belief, otherwise the assertion would be made. But that’s a deduction you’re making, that’s not what the message the person speaking is pointing to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Quinnipiac is rated as A- quality poll by 538 and have Biden at 33% Approval. You are using a statistic from polls rated C or worse averaged in.
Enjoy the delusion.
I’m using the average of all polls, not picking and choosing the ones that tell me what I want to hear. But go on and lecture me about delusions…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I’ve actually been trying to figure out now for a while what causes people to pick a specific “side” to begin with and I’ve pretty much got nothing, other than some inherent personality differences
I really don’t think it’s a complex issue. We all begin with our core values, and everything follows from that. It kind of reminds me of an excel spreadsheet; change one number and the entire page recalculates, often to a point where you don’t even recognize any of it.
What fascinates me is when someone refuses to acknowledge why they believe what they do to the point where they won’t even admit it to themselves. Either that or when someone takes a position that they themselves won’t even defend so they twist themselves in pretzels to defend the indefensible.
If you ask me about the summer protests I have no problem saying the looters and rioters should all be in jail, and that these protests went way too far. Why? Because I actually care about reality, and that’s reality.
But ask a few of our Trump defending friends here about January 6th and “but the summer riots!” are all you will get from them. When one finally admits it they say it wasnt too bad. “what hostile force?”
I just can’t figure out whether they’re lying to me or to themselves. But when it comes to picking sides, I guess that’s more about pride than anything else. The problem occurs when we allow our political affiliation to become intertwined with our sense of self identity. Because then anything that confronts our position feels like an attack in oneself personally. At that point principals and logic go out the window.
For me, my sense of self identity comes from being grounded in logic and reason and holding to my principals. That doesn’t mean I’ll always get it right, but it means if I care about anything I espouse I must be willing to admit when I’m wrong and change my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Agreed, and the only way to stop it is by voting Donald John Trump in 2024.
Do you work for the Trump campaign?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Actually, it’s the 42 percenters
As usual, you’re confusing Biden’s approval rating with Trump’s.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
However, I wanna try something different instead.- In this thread I will genuinely discuss with you absolutely any topic you wish to discuss, with open-mindedness.
Why is this not your approach all of the time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Our new defense to J6 should be, “it was a mostly peaceful protest.”
Too bad for you that the political right including and especially the guy on your avatar photo to this day continues to defend the conduct of those who were not peacefully protesting.
You must get tired of all the pretzels you have to twist yourself in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If it’s an insurrection, why wasn’t anyone charged with?Calling it an insurrection is a lie if no one was charged and convicted with it
If there is, as you and Democrats proclaim, a conspiracy to commit insurrection, then there should be at least one charge along those lines
Are we done with this talking point now?
Created:
Posted in:
The words "I believe" have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, it is entirely pointing to the mindset of the speaker.Yes, but when comparing that statement to a similar statement with more context pertaining to belief, then the proper assumption is that statement is also pertaining to belief otherwise it’s fair to ask why is it being said and why is it being compared?
I don’t understand what you’re asking. Please rephrase and/or elaborate further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The words "I believe" have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, it is entirely pointing to the mindset of the speaker.Yes, but when comparing that statement to a similar statement with more context pertaining to belief, then the proper assumption is that statement is also pertaining to belief otherwise it’s fair to ask why is it being said and why is it being compared?
I don’t understand what you’re asking. Please rephrase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
If you were to start a thread on the “summer of love” I would have plenty to say about it without having to appeal to constant whataboutisms. That’s what it looks like when someone actually believes the things they say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How do you justify to somebody that believes something is true that you know 'for a fact' that what you believe is true contradicts their truth?
You appeal to logic and reason. And if that does not work then we're at an impasse, nothing more can be done. In terms of conversation anyway.
There is a reality, objectively, I'd agree to that but to know whether you are right or the other is right just because you're with the majority and it seems to make sense to your brain is never an objective absolute
This conversation has nothing to do with absolute certainty. I'm simply pointing out what the concept of a fact is, because that concept is important when trying to understand other concepts such as evidence, proof, sufficiency, etc. The practical application of facts to our lives is an entirely different conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
what is it that I’ve said that made you feel the need to ask me the question you’ve asked me?
Recall our exchange from post 374:
a fact is a fact regardless of whether you believe it or notthe word sufficient in that sentence is determined entirely by whether the individual accepts the propositionTwo contradicting statements in the same post, because facts are no different from sufficient evidence
You highlighted these two statements claiming that I made two contradicting statements in the same post. But one is talking about facts and the other is talking about acceptance of facts. If you understand the difference between these two statements you can't possibly claim these are contradictory. And this is not the first time, we've been arguing about this same distinction for the past two or three pages.
This whole thing (or most recent chapter of it) began with your claim that facts require proof. I immediately responded by pointing to this very distinction. If you accept the distinction, can you please explain what your issue is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The difference between
"The Earth is round"
And
"I believe the Earth is round"
Are the words "I believe". The words "I believe" have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, it is entirely pointing to the mindset of the speaker.
Before I continue tying this in to why this matters with regards to our conversation, what issue do you have with this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Compared to someone getting their brains smashed in by a bicycle lock or having their business burned down...
There was nothing in the question, implicit or explicit, asking January 6th to be compared to the summer riots. Why are you guys so incapable of talking about January 6th without immediately deflecting to whataboutisms?
If it were antifa acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton would your attitude towards 1/6 be a complete 180 from what it is now? Everyone on this site this knows it would be.
What is it about politics that shuts off that switch enabling logical reasoning and acknowledgement of reality to be prioritized?
You really want to know what's different about 1/6 and the riots? There political side associated with the riots rejects them and the side associated with 1/6 does not. How many left wing politicians had a problem talking about rioting and looting not being acceptable? Very few. And look at NYC, who in the wake of all this elected a pro-police cop to be they're next mayor. The left already rejects this nonsense, so all you guys are talking to the wall.
The right meanwhile has elevated nearly everyone in support of everything the Capitol mob was trying to accomplish to their own leadership. One senator calls the rioters terrorists and had to go apologize to Tucker Carlson on national TV. And the man behind it all remains the leading candidate for the next presidential nomination.
The whataboutisms are just plain stupid. These two things are not remotely the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s all optics for them. Just look at the “mostly peaceful protests.” Same scenario here
And what were the mostly peaceful protesters on January 6th protesting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The riots throughout the summer were 100% forced from the top-down. The cause was less rapid than the singular event on Jan 6, but the lies spread in the media about high-profile cases over a course of about half a decade led to that rioting.
First of all, the idea that this came from the media is nonsense. The number of people being killed by police has not risen significantly over the past decade. What has changed is the fact that ordinary people now have the ability to capture this and spread it without the media being needed. This is why all the high profile cases were being catapulted into the mainstream. It didn’t come from the media, the media was forced to report on it because of the backlash this was getting by anyone with a smart phone.
Second, even if we grant this premise that it came from the media, the argument still fails. The media didn’t plot anything. There was no end game to reporting on these police incidents. There was no date where the media said “hey everyone, come on down on this date and stop this”. If Derek Shovin hadn’t killed George Floyd in broad daylight in the slowest most cruel way possible, it's likely none of the riots would have happened.
Third, “the media” is just a lazy catch all phrase uttered by right wingers who love to pretend that what’s going on on the left is any different than the right. We can argue all day about which side of the spectrum is actually doing the lying here, but right wing news plays no less of a role than left wing news in ginning up the base. What’s different about the right vs the left on these two issues is the fact that right wing politicians were also front and center in inciting this, which is who I’m talking about when I talk about “the top”.
These two things are not even close.
But exactly how was democracy threatened?
January 6th was not a spontaneous event. If you actually want to understand how and why this is so bad you need context.
Again, it was not pushed by some vague notion like "the media". The one person who pushed all of this and whom none of this would have happened without was the president of the United States.
January 6th was the culmination of a months long effort by him to hold power no matter what the voters decided. When they rejected him, it was only onto the next step. At that point it was him making use of stochastic terrorism, and once the probable outcome occurred he was not punished for it. That, is why democracy is in serious danger at the moment. Because of people like you pretending there was nothing to see here while those who were behind inciting it continue to learn from their mistakes and set the stage for the next election.
Sounds only somewhat bad to me.
This is just disingenuous. If it were antifa beating police officers on their way to the Chambers of Congress to stop a Trump certification you would be grabbing you're pitchfork and torch and you know it.
That hostile force? No guns, no killing.
So beating police officers, busting through police barricades protecting the US Capitol, smashing windows to get in, vandalizing the US Capitol while chanting to hang the vice president, and forcing Congress to hide in bunkers while they were supposed to be certifying an election is not a hostile force? Is this a joke?
The president told them to go home on the day of.
After three hours of the entire world watching in horror. After there hours of everyone from Kevin McCarthy to Ivanka Trump to Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram pleading with him to put a stop to it.
How many hours of this before a president Hillary Clinton told antifa to go home would you have been ok with?
This is both why I am so fascinated by this topic and yet why it's such a pointless effort. It just amazes me watching people twist themselves in pretzels to make arguments they don't believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t even believe you’re being serious at this point, there is no way you can’t figure this out. I’m just intrigued at how difficult you are trying to make something so simple.
Evidence: “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
Source: Google the damn definition
I am not adding belief as a variable, it was added the second we started talking about evidence.
Would you, now, like to answer the question, or are you going to continue finding shiny objects to point to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Two contradicting statements in the same post, because facts are no different from sufficient evidence
The earth is round.
I believe the earth is round.
Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If there is, as you and Democrats proclaim, a conspiracy to commit insurrection, then there should be at least one charge along those lines.
So we’re back to “if person X isn’t charged with a crime, no crime was committed”. I’ll remember that one.
Saying people committed insurrection when most just trespassed and vandalized is intentionally misleading.
Actually the latter is what’s intentionally misleading. You completely ignore the fact that the charge of insurrection, like most charges in law, depend on the person’s intent which is easy to deduce but extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Saying they just vandalized and trespassed is blatantly disingenuous. We know why they were there, we know what they wanted, they told us so. For you to pretend that these people just happened to be there and happened to waltz themselves in just makes you unserious to talk to.
Makes sense though. Keep diverting attention from all of Biden’s failures: Afghanistan, Border, Supply Chain, COVID, Filibuster, Build Back Better
Is that really the best list you could come up with? lol
I’m especially intrigued by you putting Covid on that list. Please explain to me how that is Biden’s failure when it is entirely driven by republicans and their voters refusing to get vaccinated or put in place any restriction that could possibly keep the virus in check.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I propose a god that can metaphysically function beyond itself.That's irrational, no matter how you put it. And it is not within my capacity to rationalize using irrational premises.
You’re not supposed to rationalize it. The expectation is that *if* you accept logic as the foundation of acceptable thought, you would reject the existence of such a being as even being possible let alone actual. Therefore the claim that said being does not exist could not be said to be an illogical claim because it is a product of Logic’s most basic principals.
All I’m getting at is to see whether you accept that idea. The same would apply to any self contradictory proposition, like a married bachelor or a five sided triangle. And if you accept it then I would agree with your original statement that a claim of god’s non existence is irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If the evidence does not produce belief then please explain what it is sufficient for.Truth
Evidence does not produce truth. Try again.
Please explain the difference between “sufficient evidence” and “adequate proof”
No answer
Who determines whether proof is adequate?
No answer.
These are really simple questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I mean that’s how the justice system works. Innocent until proven guilty.
And there is the problem; you’re trying to pass off a legal argument as a colloquialism.
When we talk about an insurrection at the Capitol, we’re talking about what it actually was according to the definition of the word “insurrection” and basic logic. From there we put those together to form a reasonable belief of what occurred.
But “reasonable belief” is not the standard in the justice system, so no one is charged according to that. The justice system also evaluates one individual at a time, it does not step back and look at the big picture of what happened.
So this tactic of pretending you’re the reasonable one by using legal terms and standards is nonsense. It does not apply to any reasonable evaluation of that day.
So let me ask you this: why didn’t the Justice Department charge anyone with insurrection
Ask the justice department. It’s not relevant to our discussion, although some of what I just said should provide a few clues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
“If person X was not charged with a crime, then person X did not commit said crime”
Is this a logical fallacy? Yes or No?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Astute deduction. One could reasonably presume that the staged event was planned before it actually occurred.
Yeah, no shit. And since that was the topic not only of the specific statement I replied to but is also the point of this thread, it is beyond obvious to anyone paying attention that I was talking about the post election period before January 6th.
No you weren't. You just needed time to come up with some reason to explain away your folly.
No, you just need to learn how to understand context and the role it plays in conversation.
But my response was directly aimed at your statement:I know of no democrat who set their sights on impeaching Trump after the election.
No, it was aimed at the statement you imagined. One that had nothing to do with anything said before it, which is an absurd way to have a discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Which presupposes that a self-contradictory God is accepted, without so much as providing a rationalization
Yes, that’s kind of the point of asking an “if” question. The idea is to *start* at a given point to understand the dynamic.
Example: *If* I get vaccinated, I will have greater protection against Covid.
“If” in this example does not mean I am vaccinated. That’s being presumed so that we can understand the impacts of vaccination, which can in turn help one decide if they should get vaccinated. The fact that one is not vaccinated is entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
Example 2: *If* one proposes a logically contradictory god, what happens?
In this case, the question being asked is intended to analyze the assertion that all claims of god being nonexistent are illogical. Whether any given God proposition is actually logically contradictory is entirely irrelevant for that is a completely different conversation. And one which I had no intention of having, BTW.
We've been through this nonsense before. The contradiction isn't the proposition that a God is all powerful, but the proposition that a God can metaphysically function beyond itself.
Thank you for proving the point of why I tried to avoid providing an example, because predictably you shifted the entire focus of the conversation to the example and not the question.
While I find your argument here nonsense, that’s not relevant to what I asked you. So here’s a modified proposal for you:
I propose a god that can metaphysically function beyond itself.
Now can you answer the question?
“What of the god proposed is logically contradictory”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
the word sufficient in that sentence is determined entirely by whether the individual accepts the proposition.No, it’s determined by adequate proof.
1. Please explain the difference between “sufficient evidence” and “adequate proof”
2. Who determines whether proof is adequate?
That line of thinking that sufficiency is “subject to” acceptance implies that sufficiency is relative to the person
3. If the evidence does not produce belief then please explain what it is sufficient for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I know of no democrat who set their sights on impeaching Trump after the election.
Let me remind you what this conversation began with some context.
You referred to January 6th as having been “staged”, thereby implying that some anti Trump mastermind was behind it all. So another user commented on that and you replied:
So run me a little more through this then.These secret planners waited until after already having been declared victorious in the election to pull a stunt that would demonise Trump?Then, they (these evil masterminds) failed to impeach him anyway?Were the "democrats" not trying to impeach Trump after he lost the (s)election, which at the time was subject to scrutiny?
The dialog here pertaining to the staging of the event clearly shows that the alleged plotting to impeach Trump took place before January 6th. Therefore when I tell you I am not aware of any democrats plotting to impeach Trump after the election I’m clearly talking about the period before January 6th. So showing me an impeachment that took place after January 6th as a direct response to January 6th is completely irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I ask liberals at my university how many people are charged with insurrection and then show them the facts.
So if someone isn’t charged with a crime they didn’t commit one? Wow, great argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If you want to propose and conclude a "self-contradictory" God, then explain how this conclusion was or can be rendered.
I wasn’t proposing a self contradictory God, I asked what happens *if* the god proposed *is* self contradictory. This is not complicated. At all.
Since you cannot be bothered here you go; I propose a god that is all powerful, such that he can both create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it and also lift it.
Now can you answer the question?
“What of the god proposed is logically contradictory”
Created:
Posted in:
But aren’t you the one that conflated “evidence sufficient” with belief?
No, I never conflated them. What I said in my last post was that there was no meaningful difference between the two, and that’s because it’s irrelevant in the context of our conversation.
Let us recall that this all began with your statement that facts are subject to proof. Ever since then, I have been pointing out why they are not - because a fact is a fact regardless of whether you believe it or not. I have also been pointing out that you seem to be confusing the question of whether one believes something as fact with whether it is actually a fact. Only the former is subject to proof, not the latter.
When I talk about sufficient evidence, the word sufficient in that sentence is determined entirely by whether the individual accepts the proposition. So in any case, belief in and of itself answers that question automatically. Thus this is not a conflation of concepts, it’s a recognition that by definition, if you have one you *necessarily* have the other.
So pray tell what’s the evidence sufficient for the belief that the earth is flat?
The evidence is whatever the individual who accepts the proposition bases their belief on. The question of whether one’s evidence is valid or strong enough to be convincing to anyone else is an entirely different conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
No. You proposed the notion of self-contradiction. If you want one imagined, then you can take the liberty.
Why does everything with you have to be so difficult?
What I proposed was the scenario where the god proposed was logically contradictory. Note the question below, again…
“What if the god proposed is logically contradictory?”
The word “if” in this sentence denotes that such proposal has already been made, so I’m not asking you to imagine such a scenario, only to imagine that you have already concluded such and am asking what happens from there.
If you want to challenge the premise of my question that such scenario is possible I’d be happy to explain why your challenge is nonsense, but until then please just answer the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Establishment and acceptance are too different things (at least in the context we’re discussing it).
The word “establish” is pointing to the result of a process. Acceptance is the result. There’s no meaningful difference here. If a person believes something, then the evidence was sufficient for them. Why is this so difficult?
…because not all beliefs are “SUBJECT TO” evidence. Some believe the earth is flat despite “sufficient evidence” of the contrary.
Yes, some people are idiots who believe things without any evidential support. That does not change the point here. In those cases “nothing” was sufficient for that person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And you can claim that is a “whataboutism”, but it’s a valid point. Do I support breaking into the Capitol? Absolutely not. But does it even remotely compare to the riots of the summer in terms of damage or death toll? Not even close.
They’re is nothing valid about bringing up the summer riots *in response* to the question of what your views are regarding January 6th. Nothing.
There is also nothing valid about comparing them. The summer riots were a period of national civil unrest over a longstanding contentious issue, the final straw of which being sparked by a video taken by bystanders and spread over social media.
January 6th was the culmination of a political plot to steal an election.
In other words, the summer riots was an uprising from the bottom up, Jan 6th was pushed from the top down starting with the president of the United States.
Moreover, when we talk about January 6th we’re not talking about property damage, we’re talking about the security of the US Capitol and of our democracy. So this is not even the same conversation.
These two things do not compare in any way.
But since the post is reflecting on Jan 6th, then I suppose I’ll say this: it was somewhat bad. It wasn’t an insurrection or an attempted coup. It’ll be blown way out of proportion like Charlottesville and become this kind of weird lefty anti-holiday. The worst part about it is that now libtards will use this one instance of right wing rioting in decades to say “but muh right wing extremists riot tooooo”
Ok, it was “somewhat bad”. Thanks for that.
Now, if you don’t mind, I’d love to dig a little deeper on why you think it was only somewhat bad. Lets start with some basic facts and move into opinion later. Please tell me which part of the below description is not factually accurate…
On January 6th the US Capitol was taken over by a hostile force, forcing congress to have to evacuate in the middle of certifying the next president, the people who carried this out overwhelmingly stated that they were there on behalf of the sitting president of the United States who didn’t do or say anything about it till three hours into it, and to this day he has never given any serious condemnation of it.
What part of this is factually wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do the 30 percenters need the illusion of this? You can see with your own eyes how shitty life is in the city of DC for anyone outside of the elite cabal.
Why are you so obsessed with Joe Biden’s approval rating?
BTW, as I write this it’s 42.9, well higher than it was for the vast majority of the Trump presidency.
Created: