Then i may be missing something. My understanding is that the conflict in the above exchange is that you are asserting a temporality requirement to the knowledge that Bob will become President, relevant to the order in which knowledge of what President is, and subsequently, that Bob will become one/it, is received. I.e that one must know what a President is, in order to justify the knowledge that Bob will become one/It - that the former piece of information must be presupplied before the assertion of the former could be considered knowledge.

I don't think that's the case. If that's not what the conflict above is about, ignore me haha

LOL, Oh, i see. As you were..

The Dems were not (which is the comparison).

I'm unsure this is the time to enact Godwin's Law

lawful power to defraud the country — praxis

This is oxymoronic. I also disagree it seemed as if he was responding to J6.

What laws were broken in this coup you mention?

I'm not sure any laws were broken. — NOS4A2

You asked a question and he answered it with surprising directness.

I appreciate your sentiment to me, and I feel the same.

It's just that i'm sure you're capable of not devolving into pissing matches. It may well be the case that Tim is ideologically blinded, and is being disingenuous and wasting your time. I'm addressing hte general vibe and cordiality. I know this is a political discussion so a wide berth is given. This is just a personal appeal.

I should just ignore him. — Benkei

If that's what's needed, that might be the go.

@Benkei

Just a note - from a third party - you are both now not talking about anything but that you are having negative emotional reactions to each other. I would suggest perhaps either resetting to a position in whcih you can both speak about where you are disagreeing, instead of yelling at each other, or agreeing to part ways without such intense personal negativity.

I hope not to see fall-outs like this on a forum like this. I'm sure the basic notion we all hold is trying to avoid needless suffering. I may be hte wrong person to be making this call given my commitment to relativism, but that aside, I am well-aware of the practical need for shared values and language.

Could we return to somethign resembling a discussion instead of a primal argument? If this seems a bit high-falutin' i'm sorry. I just don't like seeing people losing humanity over an already-immeasurable loss of humanity :\

I get the feeling that all of these thinkers did not take much time to avoid being depressed, which can be done.

I am unsure I can take seriously a set of thinkers who are preoccupied with exploring the depths of their negative emotions. I think there is definitely something to the 'dark night of the soul' concept, and that this can, at least post-hoc, make some rather dismal experiences a little more light-ful or at least practically helpful (in highsight). But the feelings i take to be despair and hopelessness are things that you do to yourself, not immediate responses to events in your life. In that sense, I just think they're pointless mental wanking really.

I do not think that dwelling on the nature of these things can lead anywhere but further into them - which seems a pretty stupid thing to strive for, imo.

I need to know the former before the latter. — Bob Ross

Not sure that's true. You can have direct knowledge that Bob will become President (for instance, if you're told he's going to be by a source trustworthy). You might then want to ask what a President is, and have that explained to you - I imagine, barring some mental incapacity, you will pretty automatically fill in the blanks of the original statement (i.e what 'President' means) and have a full understanding of what 'Bob is going to be President' really presents you with.

I may be missing something from further back in the exchange btu this seems a solution to the temporality problem in this case.

Wild.

I have to genuinely admire your obstinance in the face of overwhelmingly unfavourable reception. I suppose that's informed by my knowledge that you're talking shite, but hey. I genuinely, not a word of sarcasm, respect your determination.

This is more or less where I sit, fwiw. I can't possibly know what numbers are accurate, but it seems pretty wild to think that it's just not happening something like how it's reported from either side.

So then we have something which has no prior explanation for its existence? A first cause? Again, I appreciate your agreement. — Philosophim

I think what he thinks you're not getting is that the thing itself is not 'uncaused' anymore than an object which exists in a world without gravity is 'ungravitised' or whatever.

It came to be in a scenario where 'cause' was a not a factor. Only since it's inception is cause a factor - so to refer to it as a 'first cause' is erroneous. Its just the first thing - which enables a second thing, but doesn't cause it.

But I see (removing the snark, hehe) what you're getting it. It necessarily follows that it would be the first thing to cause anything. I think they can both be right.

Ah - well, that's fair enough. I'll try to be more precise in future.

I'm unsure it wise to end this exchange with a school-yard misrepresentation. But you do you, Boo :kiss: I'm sure outside of this thread we'll have great conversations.

To some degree, yes. They did. And they were wrong.

A milquetoast 'standing up' and being immediately sat down by the presider with some force (that presider, was Joe Biden) is not, in any way conceivable the same in kind as an attack on the Capitol.

The reason — Beverley

Sure, i more-or-less understand how the equation works, but your explanation betrays your initial position. I'm unsure how to take that.. Mass and energy can be considered equal, but that's largely because of the below considerations...

We can understand how the amount of mass, or matter, in the universe is very small compared to the amount of energy when we consider that there are vast areas of space which are virtual vacuums, hence, why we call it 'space', whereas in just one star, enormous amounts of energy are converted. Stars are one example of where mass/matter is converted into energy btw (through the process of nuclear fusion.) — Beverley

As best i can tell, all this speaks to is the distribution of energy, Matter is, from what I understand, just really dense energy. This is why an atom bomb works (i think you mentioned similar)

Mass and energy are basically the same thing, just at different states. — Beverley

I agree with this, as above, but you've been more precise and I thank you for that!!

Hopefully this makes more sense now???? — Beverley

Certainly does. But I can't see how it relates to experiencing the total Universe. I see you parsing out different aspects of hte Universe which we can conceptualise and understand through certain observations.

I can't 'experience' the USA. I could 'experience' The Vatican. I can understand, and hold in my mind, its total limits, as it appears to me empirically. It's a boring thing to point out, i'd say, but I don't see how one can experience the Universe anymore than they can experience 'all possible pain'. It includes things you aren't able to experience (the pain of others - and that problem exists in both the 'possible pain' and 'the universe' scenarios).

filled it with your own assumptions — NOS4A2

Cool thing is, I didn't. And it's right there as proof positive that you've just lied.

I was only hoping — NOS4A2

that i was an absolute moron. I know. You were wrong.

Do you think the Israeli numbers are credible? I would hazard neither can be trusted. But I also find it extremely hard to think the numbers aren't at least in that neighbourhood given the disparity in both technology and funding.

Did you not say this? “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.” — NOS4A2

It was what's called a proposition, within a syllogism. I'm unsure you're really understanding what's going on here.

Is this a full direct quote? — NOS4A2

No. The direct full quote is. You cannot possibly be this stupid.

You quoted him at a point of your choosing, filling in the rest with words of your own choosing. I can quote you again if you’d like. — NOS4A2

I can do you one better - I quoted him. Which, you know, anyone who can read (you) can see. This is how i know you're lying. Nothing i can do with it, but point htis out as it happens.

So I’m just curious why you feel the need to pick and choose what parts of the quote you want and supply your own words to the rest? Logic and sense? — NOS4A2

I've quoted them in full. You are out-right lying. The kind of lying I cannot do anything with but tell you you are lying. Because you can read. So you know you are lying.

So why make such sweeping alterations, and pretend he said one and not the other? — NOS4A2

I've not. I literally quoted him. Directly. No interpolation whatsoever. You are lying. And you know you are lying.

His words explicitly and directly say something else than what you’ve consistently claimed it does, — NOS4A2

They don't. I quoted him, so I know they don't. You are lying. Told you you wouldn't have any fun.

The only possible point you could conceivably make that doesn't require you lying, is that you think 'allow' and 'justify' in this context are somehow materially different, in that they indicate different attitudes or intentions about the objects in question (the rules, articles etc.. of the Constitution).

How you could possibly think that is, I think, not something a sane person could understand.

Interesting. No matter the destination, i tend to want road trips to last longer. It almost feels like a time-out-of-time when im road trippin'.

Ok, that's a bit different from your previous take LOL.

Hmm, yeah Memento is good, but it was essentially nicked, and improved by a French film called Irreversible by Gaspar Noe.

I think Nolan's films are great - they're Hollywood, but Hollywood for less-stupid people haha. To be honest, though, the only one of his films that i think is an objectively 'good' film in the sense of coherence, style, dimension, dynamics, acting, cinematography etc.. is Interstellar. The rest have their moments of stupidity (excepting Batman.. It's already ridiculous).

If it helps, I've not seen Oppenheimer - you could be right.

But I conclude that given his hit rate (prior to Oppy) is 100%, I simply must dismiss this as trollish games :D

I suppose this presents a pretty interesting conundrum - the human ingenuity that came up with an automobile, is also the one, at the same moment which created the psychological problem of desiring it's use. Now that we're able to fairly simply, easily, and cheaply travel from NYC to LA in 3 days instead of three months - losing that seems a bargain we can't justify - even by saving the planet lmao

NB: I am aware we can do it in 6-ish hours. Restricting comment to the use of cars.

intelligence enables a greater understanding of one's pain, which might in turn mitigate its emotional effects — mcdoodle

I think this requires an addition of a strong will. Intelligence doesn't equate to a strong will, or control of ones faculties. As @Tom Storm notes, the opposite is as likely, i think. It seems, more often than not, that particularly intelligent people with low skill tend to be extremely depressed.

I missed this - but you should also check out Cunk on Christmas.

One of the funniest Christmas-related watches i've had in years.

That said, I am extremely disappointed by your clearly factually incorrect opinion on Nolan. That may be why I neglected to give you this Alpha Recommendation :shade:

Fair enough; I think it's clear they're 1. Less capable; 2. Less energetic and 3. Less aggrieved. The BLM protests are the 'canary' for that.

But, that said, I have just heard some lines from a podcast about the Conservative/Republican movement in the USA which are.. to my mind.. utterly bizarre and clearly an interpolation from someone who is extremely biased.

Yet, i know that isn't hte case, in this particular case. So i assume i am underinformed :)

Personally, they're as bad as each other, for different reasons.

But, its totally understandable that someone is comfortable in your position. The GOP, and Trumpers more specifically (i.e the Trumpers in their capacities in teh GOP before Trump) have been the same type of dangerous for several decades at the least.

The newer 'woke' problems have been inching on us for only about 15 years, in my estimation. Easy to miss. However, I was chest-deep in it for a time(And i do mean.. DEEP.. I thought I was morally obliged to literally hand a job offer to a female if i got one, as an example of how deranged i was) and must conclude from my experiences they have an equal potential for social destruction unfortunately :(

Your belief otherwise is just falling for liberal media propaganda. — Mikie

Ah, I see. LOL.

Tbf, liberal media is absolutely awful. But that has no bearing here - just wanted to give at least one opinion here haha.

To this assumption regarding his motives: — NOS4A2

That's not a motive.

Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.

His own words say this, directly, with absolutely no middle man. Bizarre that you're asking. I didn't need to do anything to 'get there'. It is what he said he believes.

His clarification directly disputes both assumptions. — NOS4A2

My position (the second of your quoted objectionable quotes) is not disputed by anything he has subsequently said that isn't a direct contradiction of what he... said. So, I can accept he misspoke perhaps.

So how do you get from one to the other — NOS4A2

I have outlined, twice, how this is a purely logical and sensible conclusion to draw. If you don't see it, that's within you to fix.

Fwiw, your response here sorted much out for me. Thanks mate

I laid that out, fairly clearly. You had an objection. I pointed out it was an inaccurate objection, the answer to which is in the content of the quotes. You are back to pretending that didn't happen.

P1: Trump believes a Massive Fraud justifies the suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution"
P2: Trump believes the 2020 Election was a Massive Fraud ™

C: Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified (the idea that this doesn't imply he wants it to happen is bogus, and not a real argument).

So again, what type of Fraud do you think he was referring to?? I will take a second brush past this question as a fair estimate that you understand exactly that he's talking about the election, which he believed was a Massive Fraud™

Now, the above is clear any not really amenable to massage. However, lets leave it aside. I know what you're doing. I tend to do the same, when it's actually happening. JPB is a prime example of someone being taken out of context, lied about, interpolated until his entire persona appears to those who know nothing about it, as if a fully-fledge and technicoloured monster. I get it. But...

You would read the same thing that we are out of a Biden statement similar. You would not be so indolently pedantic as to deny the basic and obvious meaning of the statement, as if you didn't get it. So why with Trump?

A Massive Fraud of this type — AmadeusD

Of what type do you think he was referring? Tax fraud? Or could it be, that I am well aware of the context and I am accurately portraying the situation here? because that's the case.

Ah! I see. That does seem the MO. lol

P1: Trump believes the 2020 election was a Fraud
P2: Trump believes a fraudulent election justifies suspension of the Constitution *which is the correct reading of "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles...found in the Constitution"
C: Trump doesn't want to suspend the Constitution?

Could you kindly try to make sense of that for me

Ok.

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” ; and

“Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"

There's your context, and the exact quotes. As noted - inarguable. It is a fact that this was done by Trump. That you do not accept this fact, despite its obtaining, isn't really that interesting.

They aren't, though, that's the thing. Or you'd have demonstrated it by now, I'm sure.

But, as an example - the fact is, Trump quite directly noted that the 'Fraud' of the 2020 election justified the suspension of 'rules' including 'parts of the constitution' via Truth social. This is inarguable. The implication (and motivation, I guess) you could argue - but you wouldn't have much fun I don't think.

No.

I’m not going to debate it with you further, you can believe whatever you like — Wayfarer

I have no debate to ascend to, or even an oppositional opinion to lay out. — AmadeusD

Once again: I am not, have not, and will not lay out my opinion on this. — AmadeusD

I am not engaging you in a political debate — AmadeusD

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

"I don't care to answer" — AmadeusD

I’m not going to debate it with you further, you can believe whatever you like, life is too short for pointless internet arguments. — Wayfarer

There is no moral equivalence between the two ;)

There's an undercurrent on this forum along the lines of: well, America is f***d, politics is f***d, Trump is just what you're going to get from American politics, and Biden, being a politician, is no different — Wayfarer

There may well be, but unless you can point me to where I said this, intimated this, or said something that could, without insanity, be interpreted as this, in line with the discreet question i asked, I have to assume you're not really trying to do anything but argue with people. Each time i make it clear you've gotten something well wrong (including pointing out hte thread title) you just move to another tactic to make it seem unreasonable. Hard to work with..

My question comes squarely under 'General Discussion', does it not?

I also find that a really odd retort to my having parsed out exactly what I'm asking, through your emotional response.

Can you just let me know fi you don't care to answer the question please? I have no issue with that, if so. It would've just been easier to have an "I don't care to answer" earlier in this exchange :smile: