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:

They’re complete lies. — NOS4A2

Well, no, all four are plainly true. Their implication is another thing. But I'd hazard a differing between us there too.

I was under the impression it was more-or-less foregone that it was Trump v Biden this year and that the legal pressure on Trump was kind of the only upset to the apple cart.
Was that not the vibe in other quarters?

Oh mate, this is so difficult.

Once again: I am not, have not, and will not lay out my opinion on this. I am asking you about yours. You seem to be really, seriously, entirely missing the point of what I'm asking here. The facts are completely irrelevant to my question.

It doesn't matter how I or they feel about that. — Wayfarer

Except this is exactly what I'm asking you about. So, yeah, this is literally the only thing that matters. I am not engaging you in a political debate. I am asking you a personal psychological question. If you don't care to answer, that's fine, but is an entirely different response to what you've, so far, jumped headlong into.

It is a fact that Trump has said he wants to suspend the Constitution, jail his critics and purge the civil service. It is also a fact that neither Joe Biden nor any other Democrat has said any such thing. — Wayfarer

Yes. Those things seem to be clearly true. I never denied any of this, or intimated that I did/would (though, as a matter of curiosity I have heard talk from Dems of doing away with the Electoral College... It's no matter, don't get stuck on it. Just in passing).

Real politics is at stake. — Wayfarer

Not in the question I asked. Not quite sure why you're hell-bent on bringing up the most dire and intense version of this. I haven't asked about any of that.

What the heck is going on my dude? This is so bizarre. Let me rephrase the question in a way that is politically expedient, and will massage your political leanings:

Why you think (some)Republicans feel exactly the same way?

It absolutely, in no-way whatsoever imports a moral question of any kind, in any way.

What i asked was exactly as you quoted - Are you sure this isn't just that half the country agree with teh things you dont (they may be blatantly wrong - it's not relevant) and that what they believe is in line with whomever they see as a leader (who could be a murderous psychopath - it simply doesn't matter to the question i'm asking).

You: Agree with Biden (i assume) and Disagree with Trump (let's assume you're 100% in the right, there's no debate or 'other side' to be seen. I know you do). Therefore, to live under Trump would be to be required to live under a leader you vehemently disagree with on just about everything - which would feel like a Dictator.

Others: Agree with Trump and disagree with Biden. Same as above, in reverse.

Are you sure that your take here:

and a dictatorship, where everyone must agree with the leader. — Wayfarer

is not, in fact, the exact same thing the other side claims is the case, but in reverse? The facts of the matter are literally irrelevant. I want to know hwo you frame that opposedl psychologies when they are claiming the same thing. Most Republicans of the kind you're highlighting believe Biden is the Dictator (and, unless you've lost your mind, there's some extremely minor truck to that if you think the COVID measures were out of line - doesn't matter if you're right, it just explains the psychology of it, in that extremely minor way that it can) for the same reasons.

I literally said nothing that could possibly import the notion that I think you're inaccurate in your position on the facts.

You have gone from 0-100 and it speaks directly to me earlier comments about polarization.

Nothing you just said has much at all to do with why I asked, or what i asked you about..
I asked you a simple question, importing zero opinion of my own (which you already know doesn't comport with your comments here). I am interested in your answer - I have no debate to ascend to, or even an oppositional opinion to lay out. There is no 'moral equivalence'. It's a psychological question that I'm interested in your answer to.

Please, for the love of Philosophy, stop importing entire belief systems into my posts to avoid answering a simple question. If it is the case that you cannot speak in a political thread without doing so, please let me know immediately as I wont bother asking for your takes anymore. I sought to explore your thought on the matter, and nothing else. Assume whatever you want, but do not lay your assumptions on me. The plain fact is, I am interested as to why you see that psychological condition as one-sided. The facts don't get me there (which I don't deny).

where everyone must agree with the leader. — Wayfarer

Are you sure this isn't just that half the country agree with things you don't - and that's in line with whomever they are seeing as 'leader'?

It seems, when the roles are reversed, the assertion is the same...

:ok:

Okay . I don't agree with you but I don't have time to argue this morning. I think math is the language of God and there is not rock evidence of that, so it is more of a poetical notion. — Athena

Fair enough. I find the concept of God incoherent, so I guess that explains the daylight between us there :P

Egyptians were well aware of triangles but did not have a concept of a proof making the notion of a triangle universal — Athena

As i understand it, this is true for many pre-Pythagorean cultures. Though, it's worth noting it seems like Pythagoras' school may have been the source of 'his' insights, rather than the man himself.

The Chinese notion of chi has proven very useful — Athena

For? Not an indictment - Just wondering where you see the utility. Given it's almost entirely absent from both psychological and physical medicine I'm hoping for a neat story about its import :)

The link you gave us is great. — Athena

Which link, sorry? Hope that doesn't come acorss totally aloof lol

Looks like it's going down. I think I'll be aiming for something like 2 weeks from now - sometime through the first week (likely weekend) in February. Let me know days in that area you are all available/would bother. I'm happy to take the hit on timezone as i'm likely the furthest away from most.

It seems Discord is the only platform which has been put forward.

Is everyone happy with that, or is there a better platform more are apt to use?

hat is to say, as a staunch legal enthusiast it definitely becomes a relevant field to be acquainted with on many an occasion. — Outlander

Would you run a prosecution that someone making this joke intended some slur?

To my mind, it's a really, really big reach from this to a slur of Ebonic dialect (or similar). Wondering if you 're thinking this could be rationalised to others, rather than 'for the right kind of person'?

The underhanded insults and hidden ad hominem are really, really not helpful. I tend to appreciate more mature, pointed and honest interactions.

Can you point out to me examples of my conduct you actually find problematic, rather than making a vague, substance-less attack?? (I also note the absolutely extraordinary irony in that fact. ). Feel free to PM me. I am open to whatever you have to say - What i am not open to is slinging shit in a drive-by on a thread irrelevant to it.

I've just thought of an even bigger problem, quite a huge one actually. If we take the universe as a whole, then it would seem that nothing exists. But since things do appear to exist, if we cannot experience those things as a PART of the universe, then it would seem that we are not part of that universe. — Beverley

This doesn't strike me as anything like a problem.

Why would that 'seem that nothing exists'? I'm not following at all there. And, it follows, that I'm not following the next two deductions.

For example, if we say that all positive energy is cancelled out by all negative energy (or gravity), then as a universe in its totality, there is no energy. — Beverley

I don't see how this is a coherent trail..

energy and mass are equal to each other — Beverley

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but hte equation you've noted shows this is not the case. Energy is equal to Mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Not Mass as it is. Very much either i'm missing something or this is totally wrong.

it would seem that all the positive energy is cancelled out by the negative energy — Beverley

Why? What negative energy? Im totally lost as to what you're really referring to..

en the same applies to mass, or matter and antimatter — Beverley

No idea how that's the case..?

And in what way is this supposed to differ from experiencing the world? Do you claim that thinking somehow removes us from the universe? — Ciceronianus

We don't experience the world(is my personal response). My question would be how do you describe experiencing 'the world'?? Not possible, best i can tell.

the rest of the universe, necessarily. — Ciceronianus

Hmm. I don't think this is the case. We interact with an extremely, infinitesimally small sliver of the Universe (if that, tbh... ) but not the Universe.

I can't understand your position. How are you experiencing the Universe? Describe it for me. Happy to hear something new.

Aye aye. Thank you.

Perhaps it will lead to an unusual strategy for the courtroom for you. If so, let me know and I will fly to NZ for the occasion. — jgill

The implication has missed me, I'm sorry :P

demand from others also that they use accurate language. — Tzeentch

This doesn’t go well :sweat:

no thank you. I have no reason to think my take here is incorrect or that you're not wrong.
Read the exchange. The vagueness is not mine - Paine was slinging shit. I asked for a question - He continued to be obtuse. Not my circus.
Place your concern where it belongs.

I read the title.
I'm heading to Hegel. The whole 'nothing requires something' seems totally incoherent. This thread may be illuminating.

If anyone wants to give me footnotes/cliff notes, i'll take 'em :)

@schopenhauer1
@Wayfarer

Fair enough, LOL. They are my favourite, as will be obvious.

I've yet to drive one, though.

Do you mean that the room only consists of its dimensions? — Beverley

*in.

It consists of plenty of stuff I didn't mention (per my understanding of these terms - could always have misapprehended!). But you can have the experience of being in a room, noting it's limitations. You cannot do this with the Universe. You cannot experience it's limits, and note that it is a Universe, in the way you can do for a Room. So, perhaps our discussion about 'all' is misleading. I don't intend, and hope I didn't come across as intending, that the requisite of 'experience' is to somehow empirically come across everything about the object.

My point is that you can empirically undergo the experience of being in a room, and know about it.

You can't do that for the Universe. We assume, or take for granted the opinions of experts. But I digress, somewhat.

If everything around us changes constantly— and this is why no two people can experience those things in the same way— then strictly speaking, the universe is potentially the ONLY thing that we can experience. — Beverley

I have literally no idea what you're pushing for with this one - apologies.

This seems problematic to me. — Beverley

It is.

if the universe includes everything around us, then the rules that apply to the universe must also apply to everything around us. — Beverley

Why? They are different things. An apple is within your grasp. The Universe is not. I'm unsure I can get a thread of thought out of this paragraph, tbh.

then nothing matters — Beverley

I happen to arrive at this, whenever I have these thoughts.

Aston Martin is the clear, undebatable, there is no contest, don't bother disagreeing quintessential British car.

Where's the question, mate?

I've requested you stop being a prat and ask me a question.

For some reason, after four direct attempts to ask you what the F you actually want, you've just, once again, shown your inability to be taken seriously.

That's fine. I had assumed this was the case.

I'll be open to a question, if you can muster up the courage to struggle to the end of a complete thought :)

Once again, this entire exchange is you being a prat.

If you have a question, lay it on me. Otherwise, all of these posts make no sense and provide merely further examples of your nonsense. Dude, I have no idea what the heck you're trying to do. I've indulged you quite enough here, so one final time..

Ask me a question about something i've said, or don't. If the next interaction isn't a question, i revert to my previous assumption you're not to be taken seriously. Make your move.

You made no sense in any of the exchange. You could have quoted me making a direct contradiction and I wouldn't care.

If you have a question, direct me to it. Otherwise, I don't care for this prevaricative nonsense.

And I don't care, as I am not taking you seriously.

Oh, well....okay....?
What a bizarre exchange. You almost had me for a minute.