If you do not think that Trump is an extremely and unusually evil man, then you haven't been paying attention - or don't understand. — tim wood

Seldom would I call a politician evil. No matter what kind of corrupt sexual predator he is. You will be then accusing people of supporting evil. Evil is something one shouldn't even tolerate.

Hence I don't say that Marxism is evil, to give one example.

What seems to have started the confusion was the second part of Cantor's version. If a complete list is possible, it contradicts the proven fact that every list is incomplete. So a complete list is impossible — JeffJo

I think most people understand the reductio ad absurdum proof. What the big problem is what then?

You see there is an inherent structural difference between giving a direct proof and having only the possibility of giving an indirect proof. What can you say about mathematical objects, that can only be shown to exist, to be true, by an indirect proof? This is where critique about Cantor really lies. Can you just assume "larger" infinities, if you indirectly prove N < R? Everything fine and dandy after that and you can assume aleph-2, aleph3, aleph4...?

I'd say when we let children do the talking for us, we have definitely left the realm of rational thought. — Tzeentch

Greta Thurnberg is the Joan of Arc of our time. Take a cause and put an innocent girl in the front as an emblem of the purity and righteousness of the cause. And why not: the Angevin dynasty had only emerged thanks to a lucky marriage while the nation states of France and England (UK) have shown historical persistence, so hooray for Joan. With climate change the righteousness of the cause is even more clear, even if the actual policies that would indeed help ought to be considered and debated.

I don't mind that teenagers participating in the global debate at all. I just wonder why people would be so offended about it. And to discuss Greta is just dumbing down the whole debate (about environmental policy).

I agree with what you say. The Middle East policy is a disaster and an utter failure. All the more reason to get out of there. — NOS4A2

One does have to remember that the US is (or was) a Superpower. Hence when (if) the US leaves any place, it will create a huge void where other countries will, basically out of necessity, try to fill in the gap. And this can turn ugly. So the thought that the US going back home will solve everything is wrong. It can also open up a can of worms.

This actually is already totally evident in the Middle East already. Previously the US did show leadership. The US could call the shots and form not only a Western, but a huge Arab & Muslim alliance when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. That Syria was fighting in this alliance showed well that American diplomacy could muster support from surprising directions. Unfortunately from this experience some Americans learnt only hubris and we got the worst cabal in US history that has ever taken over US foreign policy: the neocons. Perhaps it isn't emphasized just how different the Iraqi Invasion was from any other Post-WW2 endeavor for the US. Both in Vietnam and Korea there was a country asking for US help. The invasion of Afghanistan was something new, but that invasion was largely understood and tolerated. The Iraqi invasion was something totally new and lead to a situation where there was no turning back.

The cracks were totally evident during the Obama years. In Libya you had the worst example of the new defunctness when Arab allies of the US chose to back up different and opposing sides in the civil war, an event that ought to have been totally unthinkable. This dispute nearly ended up with Saudi-Arabia invading a GCC member with a large US Naval base, which tells how fractured the Arab coalition is. But also how Arab states are competing now for power and leverage in the new void.

The purpose was to democratize the middle east. That was made public like a decade ago. News travels really slow to finland — frank

No, but the ignorance of US foreign policy seems to be an epidemic
.
The purpose wasn't to democratize the Middle East. The purpose was to get rid of a nonexistent WMD program, which the last remnants had been already destroyed in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 by Clinton, which later was found out as the country was occupied. It was about the mushroom cloud, if you would have followed things back then. Secondly, the emphasis was NEVER on the democratization or state building. The Bush administration was adamant on that they weren't in the business of state building. When the Chief of Staff of the Army Shinseki purposed troop levels based on Balkan experience of Bosnia on how many troops should be used to pacify such a large country (Bosnia was a successful operation btw), he was fired. Only years later with "the Surge" troop levels were brought up to what Shinseki had argued for and that did have effect. Of course then it was just a time we the troops were pulled out and all the effort the Armed Forces (without much political leadership from Washington) to pacify the country and defeat Al Qaeda would be thrown away, as the sectarian Iraqi leadership quickly lost the Sunni territories to ISIS (which de facto emerged from Al Qaeda). And Al Qaeda in the Levant, a sunni insurgency fighting the American occupation, had picked the name brand from a small group of eccentric terrorist, which they didn't at all follow right from the start. So absolutely no, some fance words in a speech aren't a policy. A true policy is implemented in hard decisions and the last time the US truly engaged in nation building was during the Balkan wars, a policy the Republicans absolutely hated.

Yea, that didnt happen. — frank

?

I highly recommend to find out yourself about why the US has such peculiar relationship with Israel.

In fact it wasn't such from the start. Israel's main ally was France, which also helped the country to get it's nuclear weapons. During the Israeli war of Independence, the FBI was stopping Israel from buying weapons from the US. In fact the Eisenhower administration (and earlier the Truman administration) remained neutral and kept the distance of not become too closely allied with Israel. At this time, the only assistance the US provided Israel was food aid. Of course, at this time it had the the Baghdad Pack (CENTO), equivalent of SEATO and NATO.

US Fighters in Iran in 1977 before Iran withdrew from CENTO.

Um. Refer to answer #1. — frank

Again you are simply wrong. President Bush made it TOTALLY CLEAR that the US was in Afghanistan only to hunt and destroy Al Qaeda, not to build a democracy (ie. state building). From start, anything to do with democracy and nation building was not the way Bush would do it. And this basically meant the whole war would be a mess.

From October 1st 2001 from the Atlantic:

After the overthrow of the Taliban regime, the United States will become politically responsible for what happens next in Afghanistan.

Last month, President Bush once again repudiated nation-building. "We're not into nation-building," he said at a September 25th news conference with Japan's prime minister. "We're into justice."

At his prime-time news conference the following week, Bush signaled that he had gotten the message. "I think we did learn a lesson, and should learn a lesson, from the previous engagement in the Afghan area, that we should not just simply leave after a military objective has been achieved," the President said on October 11.

Does that mean Bush has flip-flopped on nation-building? Not exactly, because he has set some rules.

• Rule 1: The United States should keep out of Afghan politics. Or, as the President puts it, "We shouldn't play favorites between one group or another within Afghanistan." That is why the United States has not openly supported the Northern Alliance as an alternative government. Allowing minority ethnic groups to take power would split the country along ethnic lines, rally many Afghans to the Taliban regime, and antagonize the Pakistanis. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has even hinted that the United States might be willing to allow some role for "moderate" elements of the Taliban regime in a new Afghan government.

• Rule 2: The United States should share the political burden with other countries. "It would be a useful function for the United Nations to take over the so-called 'nation-building,' " Bush said at his news conference. "I would call it the stabilization of a future government." In other words, it's a distasteful task for a distasteful institution. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage seemed to capture Bush Administration thinking on Afghanistan when he remarked, "We have said we don't want to run it. It's not ours."

• Rule 3: Keep the military as far away from politics as possible. That means, in effect, not tying the military down with a peacekeeping role. "I wouldn't read anything [Bush] is saying to suggest he plans to keep American troops on the ground in Afghanistan," a senior Administration official told The New York Times. "He's quite adamant on the point."

Not Exactly a Bush Flip-Flop

From the above article you can see how utterly confused the war effort in Afghanistan was to be right from the start. Even now, the main reason to be in Afghanistan is to "prevent it to be a safe haven for terrorists". Hence you have this totally absurd way of fighting an insurgency that basically your presence has brought up. One trillion dollars has been spent in the war in Afghanistan devoid of a true war winning strategy.

“What did we get for this $1 trillion effort? Was it worth $1 trillion?”
Jeffrey Eggers, a retired Navy SEAL and White House staffer for Bush and Obama, told government interviewers. He added, “After the killing of Osama bin Laden, I said that Osama was probably laughing in his watery grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan.”

See a great article At War with the Truth

I guess where you Frank live, news doesn't came just late, but perhaps drips only in limited quantity and quality.

Simple answer: How about not being so utterly insane when it comes to the Middle East and Central Asia?

How about not invading countries because of nonexistent WMD's and creating the turmoil of the present? Even more, how can the SAME POLITICIAN that earlier in 1992 had the following clear and truthful vision of the unavoidable quagmire that an invasion would become (please view the short speech clip below)


...AND THEN THIS SAME POLITICIAN GOES AND INVADES THE COUNTRY WITH EXACTLY THE BAD OUTCOMES HAPPENING THAT HE FORECASTED IN THE ABOVE VIDEO CLIP?

How about not basing your foreign policy of the whole area on the feelings of blissfully ignorant wacky Jesus Freaks that see an ordinary modern nation state as this sign of the second coming of Jesus and end times? Nope, the whacky Holy Rollers have to be supported: Hence you give this well off country that is totally capable of defending itself of any regional threat, is basically the dominant power in the region, the most aid that US gives to anybody in the World?



How insane is the idea that you occupy a country well know for it's historical resentment of foreign occupiers is occupied because the financier of a small cabal of 19 terrorists (of whom some were relatives to prior terrorists that attacked the same US target unsuccessfully earlier) was living in the country? The US response was to start the longest war in American history because... otherwise there might be a safe haven for further attacks. That none of the terrorist came from this country doesn't matter.

And when you did get the earlier perpetrators of the same cabal you could put them into an US jail and process them through the Justice System as typically terrorists ought to be done. Not this time. Because a police response would be too wimpy. And when you finally got this financier through a special ops mission, the war of course goes on... because it has absolutely nothing to do with the fateful terrorist attack. Yet the best thing was to invade and is to occupy a whole country. Yeah, nothing else I guess would have mattered because you felt like it.

I could go on and on, but the basic reason is that when Americans can do things for totally whacky reasons, they'll do it if it pleases some voters and plays well in domestic politics for US politicians. What the reality is on the ground on the different continents doesn't matter at all. As the sole Superpower that can pay for everything just by printing more money, there are no limitations what the US can do... so I guess then you do what you do. That's simply insanity.

So I guess what you should do is not to have a foreign policy based on less insane ideas.

And you are totally capable of it, being sane that is. When a war could result in tens of thousands of Americans or more dying, you won't start it. Hell no. Suddenly, the hawks morph into doves. Pre-emptive strikes are off the table. And diplomacy is remembered to be a tool.



That is sanity.

That’s fair. Personally I refuse to judge his presidency until the entirety of it is apparent. — NOS4A2

Historical hindsight will give the best view, yet things can be seen even now.

Let's take one of the biggest train wrecks of the US: the Middle East policy. It already had plunged into a catastrophic train wreck with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and didn't get any better with Obama (with the pull out from Iraq creating an opportunity for ISIS to create it's caliphate). Now Iraq is more close to Iran than ever. And close to Russia:

Russia was not always so enmeshed in Iraq’s oil and gas sector. After the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003 and following the occupation of Iraq, Russian companies were largely absent from the playing field. All that changed with increased sectarian conflict in 2009. Around that time, many Western oil companies (such as ExxonMobil and Chevron) partially or totally left the region due to the security concerns. Russian companies, hungrier for risk, took their place.

Russia’s entry was welcomed in Iraq. As one KRG leader told us this month, “long time before the recent political, security, and financial crisis, in early 2012, Russians entered Iraqi Kurdistan as a strong international investor. At the time, there was no need for Russians since the Americans had a strong presence and support in the region. Later, when the Kurdish leaders got disappointed with Americans, Russians appeared stronger and friendlier. The common belief in Kurdistan was that having a trade deal with them will also bring other, political and security, benefits.”

See The Future of Iraq’s Oil Is Russian

The US involvement in Syria has been a tragicomedy starting with the famous humiliating Obama's red line. Then came Trump. Putting your son-in-law in charge of the Middle East policy with absolutely no idea about politics in the area is truly absurd. That he was played as a fiddle is quite visible: the US secretary of state and other US foreign policy leaders had no idea what son-in-law or Trump were up to. Then Trump gave on a platter what Israel wanted: moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Israeli sovereignty over the annexed Golan Heights. In exchange of basically nothing. As an return gift a 'new Jewish colony', basically a dilapidated village simply renamed "Trump Heights". Bravo!

And Libya? One soon to be President was all for invading Libya and shows how totally clueless he was (and actually is):



Now consider this compared to the policy of Russia. Even if there were some rocky bumps on the road with Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter bomber, Russia helped it's ally Syria to avoid a collapse, stabilized the situation and with smart diplomacy gained cordial relations with Israel, Turkey and Jordan. Russian involvement in Syria has been limited and hasn't ended up in quagmire (as Americans hope it would as they have it). Jordania has even bought Russian weapons (like Turkey) and Netanyahu has visited five times Putin's Russia in the last two years (and only twice the US).

Telling picture of the result of US invasion of Iraq: Pro-Iranian fighter posing on his M1 Abrams tank in Iraq


Russians taking over immediately an abandoned US airbase:


In all, Russia looks to be mopping up Middle East as Trump is going home. It's thanks to a basically having a persistent down to Earth approach to the area and engaging with the countries, Russia reaps the fruits it has sown.

The unfortunate thing is that Trump supporters either don't care about the US in the Middle East or think it's a good thing simply to leave. Or it's just bad mouthing of their favorite president by 'Hillary supporters'. Perhaps it's simply so bad that Americans don't even care anymore at all.

1) Centre not left. — Baden

Going from right to the center is going left.

2) It doesn't matter what Johnson says. — Baden

Right. The implementation of policies and their outcome takes a long time. Yet discourse is important in politics.

5) I don't know how many there are. — Baden

Me neither. Likely the number is as obscure as the number of 'Cultural Marxists' in universities brainwashing new generations of students to the leftist/woke cause.

6) "Brextremists" might be a more accurate term as they're not all on the right. — Baden

Ok. But that number is small, I will still argue. Especially after Brexit has happened. If people would be logical, you would need a new definition. But perhaps not. Perhaps "Brexiteers" will continue to be present after decades from now: those Britons/english who cherish Brexit and think that Brexit was equivalent of winning the Battle of Britain in 1940 against the German Luftwaffe. That surely sound "Brextremism" today. Who knows.

So, my claim is (and it's just a theory, obviously) that Johnson will pivot away from his hard Brexit line because that will make it easier for him to make a trade deal and allay the risk of a new no-deal exit, which would have disastrous economic implications. He can drop the pretence of ideological commitment now because he has castrated Farage as a political player. And his history shows he's generally pro-European, so I expect his focus to be on maintaining his economic bona-fides rather on trying to win any more Brextremist beauty contests. This is all just another way of saying it's about realpolitik. — Baden

Forgetting about the UKIP/Brexit Party/Farage nonsense surely happens, because the Brexit party is already something of the past. In the end they have nothing to do with the conservative party. I don't think that this even means going anywhere on the political spectrum, left or right.

And a lot of people that voted for Brexit have nothing against being "pro-European", if that "pro-European" means trade with Europe (and participation in NATO). It's trade just like with the US or other countries.

I think Europeans will both get over very quickly with the UK not being a member of the EU. The UK has always been a separate island from Europe, literally, and it was a late comer to the EEC. Soon it will be seen as the historical 'normal' of the UK being separate from the EU. And things will be rather OK.

we’ve seen entire political careers destroyed by minor gaffes, political incorrectness and other nonsense, that it’s not only refreshing to see someone who is immune to it, but also renders useless the power and sway of those who until now thought they were king-makers. — NOS4A2

A lot of Trump supporters love this side of Trump. Basically the reason is that they are fed up with the ordinary politics done by the two parties. And why wouldn't they? The two party system has gone on and on. Another thing that many are happy about is that those who they dislike in general are extremely irritated by Trump.

I get it, but that still doesn't make him a great President.

Hello Punk Rascal!

What is the foundation for a strong, healthy, vibrant community? A strong connection between the people. This is something big cities don't have. — Punk Rascal

Even in a medium sized town people don't know each other. Hence the case of how vibrant a big or 'healthy' a city is, is a different question. In a big city interaction can be seen basically even as threatening: if someone stops you and starts talking to you in a huge city, he or she likely has something to sell, is a panhandler or has a hustle in mind. Or that's at least the typical reaction people would for anything else than asking directions. Yet that doesn't mean there isn't any social cohesion.

The cultural bonds and social cohesion don't play out ordinarily. But sometimes they do. Perhaps social cohesion (or the lack of it) is something that can be noticed in exceptional situations.

Just think of yourself being in a foreign country which is totally alien to you. You are taking a bus in the middle of nowhere in the country away from anywhere typically tourists or foreigners visit. Then a couple from your country (I'm assuming the US here) boards the bus and sit next to you. When they find out that you are also an American, most likely outcome will be that they are friendly to you (all those hi's and hellos what Americans exchange) and be interested where you come from. Here the external conditions make people that are total strangers to behave friendly to each other. And the connecting issue is belonging to a very vague social group in philosophical terms of being 'American'.

Second example is a natural disaster or war when the justice system and police are nowhere to be found. Will people that are total strangers to others start helping each other, or is the moment seen as this moment when you can run into the nearest supermarket or store and steal whatever you can carry away? This is a moment that defines either if there truly is social cohesion in the society or not.

Poor country in dire straits with low social cohesion: Looting in Iraq in 2003 after the US toppled Saddam.


Rich country in dire straits with high social cohesion: German civilians clearing Berlin 1945 after the fall of Hitler.

I heared that God-Emperor reference to Trump used back in 2016 by hardcore Trump fanatics.

It's what I would call a semi-joke. Many Trump fans think of Trump as this "Third way" saviour between the utterly corrupt Democratic and Republican parties. I don't know why really they would take someone as corrupt as Trump to be this messiah, but they did. A great example was how hyped these people got from "draining the swamp".

So it's not the pre-WW2 surrender definition of God Emperor that the Japanese had, but either it isn't only a sarcastic joke for them.

There are many cultured and intelligent leftist here. But few if any aren't for or praise how Marxism has historically played out in the multitude of leftist revolutions in history. What lacks is the previous fanatic belief in the ideology. And as there is no stigma attached to Marxism and the stench of all those killed in the name of that cause doesn't irritate us (unlike with fascism and nazism), people are happy to use the trademark.

Your error is misinterpreting what I said. I said he'll stuff the far right Brexiteers not Brexiteers in general, who come from a variety of political backgrounds.

Why? Because he's a pragmatist, if also an opportunist. And he's done the latter part already. — Baden

What are the 'far right Brexiteers'? How many 'far right Brexiteers' are there? I presume it is something similar as the number far left Stalinists in the Labour party. Or perhaps it's the 856 members of the Communist Party of Britain that is the far left in the UK.

And just how is he going to swing back to the center? Why would he do anything like that?

If you get a landslide victory, one of the biggest since the 1980's, why on Earth would any politician start 'moving' anywhere and changing the objectives and a winning narrative? The only thing, which Boris Johnson said publicly in his victory speech, is that he (and the conservative party) will never take those pro-Brexit votes from otherwise Labor leaning voters for granted. That doesn't sound like reeling to the left.

The working class prioritised and voted for Brexit, many for good reason, and now they've got it. That's totally fair. — Baden

This is the main problem with the modern day socialists: they've forgotten their old supporters in the working class and too much focused on the "woke" people. As I'm no leftist, hopefully the new left continues to forget them later too.

And btw, as I noted earlier, it was peculiar how little was talked about the polls which gave the conservatives a huge lead prior to the election.

Boris can and probably will swing back to the center now and stuff the far right Brexiteers he no longer needs with a softer trade deal etc. — Baden

Why?

First of all, likely "the Brexiteers" aren't so far right as you imply. That's your first error. Shouldn't believe the portrayal of those who oppose them. Just as I don't believe that leftists are dominated by 'Cultural Marxists'.

You believe the accusations of the opposition without evidence, and I’m naive. — NOS4A2

That Trump would be interested in the dealings of Biden's son wouldn't be about the upcoming elections? Gimme a break, you are simply very silly now.

Do you get lots of adds and targeted posts on Facebook, or other social media? I get about 30 a day, targeted for Labour, or tactical voting sites. I suspect that other people are getting entirely different messages. — Punshhh

That's one of the most irritating things in a modern democracy: when you get election adds and other material from only one or few political parties...especially if they aren't the party you have and are not thinking to vote. That for some reason the party you support doesn't even bother to target you in the elections. It's the forget those people, not worth even the effort syndrome. But it tells very clearly what the parties actually really thinks of you.

Perhaps now when our personal thoughts and attitudes are data traded in a lucrative business using computer algorithms to map and compartmentalize us for commercial or political use, this isn't as crude as just looking at one's living address or income. Facebook et al. make a buck with this!

As Giuliani said, if he wanted to meddle in the election he would have waited until October 2020 — NOS4A2

How naive. But I guess you have to regurgitate and stand by every imbecile argument that Giuliani makes in defence of Trump. Because...otherwise you wouldn't stand by your President against the evil "cultural-marxists" here.

Honestly, let's just remember when Trump started his campaign for the 2020 elections.

Let's seek appeasement with Donald Trump. The fascist leader of the fascist Republican party. — ovdtogt

I'm just waiting how Americans will feel after both Trump and Bill Clinton are shown have been participating in Epstein's underage girl sex ring / racket.

One day this OP will be used as a document in the study of mass hysteria. — Brett

Hmm, so the Opening Paragraph was:

Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks. — René Descartes

Or perhaps earlier before this format:

This place serves 7 purposes:
1) Debate about Trump.
2) Talking about Trump.
3) Shouting whatever you want at Trump.
4) Laughing, crying, hating, liking Trump.
5) Whatever else you want to do so long as it relates Trump.
6) Whateve else you want to do even though it has nothing to do with Trump.
7) etc. — René Descartes

Yeah....mass hysteria.

Trump loves going to court. And being there. And Trump typically settles things here and there and everywhere. Settler-in-Chief I'd say.

Before he took office, Donald Trump was involved in a truly astronomical number of lawsuits. A USA Today report published in 2016 found that there had been 3,500 legal actions filed by and against Trump and his hundreds of businesses in federal and state courts, ranging from sexual harassment to contract violations to class-actions for misleading advertising, and settled at least 100 of them.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/05/trump-may-send-14000-troops-to-middle-east-as-iran-threat-grows-report/

BuT SyRiA wAs AlL AbOuT SeNdInG tHe TrOoPs HoMe — StreetlightX

Saudi Arabia is totally different!

I disagree that everything either is or is not science - there are degrees of how scientific something is. — Qmeri

Of course.

Let me put it this way: there is the intent to use the scientific method to get an objective answer. How well a person or a group of researchers succeed in this is another matter. Also the intent to be objective is important: that the agenda is to know more about reality, not to push some other agenda. It happens quite often, very unfortunately, that people push an ideology, a normative idea or something that is inherently subjective as "simply being a scientific fact". Or vice versa, scientific facts are depicted to be just social constructs and totally subjective opinions.

They are very excited of the idea of created an AI enforced police state.

Computers and algorithms make it possible. In the old days you had to have an army of secret police members to listen to the phone calls, read the letters and go through all the surveillance data. Now it can be done with AI.

I'm saying that a theory that has been evaluated and accepted by mainstream science is more reliable than a theory that has only been evaluated and accepted by a fringe group (like a selected group of contracted scientists who will keep their studies secret) simply because peer review does become more reliable with a larger mass of more diverse peer reviewers. Mainstream science is not the only way of getting reliable information, but it is usually the most reliable if one does not want to become an expert himself. — Qmeri

Again, I would emphasize that there are schools of thought in science, not mainstream and fringe science itself. The foundations of science are the same. The experiments are the same, publish them or not. You either have science or then you have non-science, humbug. You can have scientist disagreeing on a variety of issues, but either one is right and another is wrong or they are talking about different issues.

So Trump finally went to Afghanistan and says he is holding talks with the Taleban. I'm not so sure how significant the approaches will be and what is the final outcome, but it is interesting to see what happens. Being the POTUS of the classic "hawk" party, Trump is in a position to make radical departures from the old. After all, radical departures is his middle name. However what his real abilities would be here are questionable. At least there might be a chance.

It's good when the American President reminds with a visit that the country is still fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan (and basically that a military victory is nowhere at sight). The longest war in American history.

Trump in Afghanistan:

All of this "secret science" you are talking about is pretty much by definition not mainstream science and has no bearing on how reliable mainstream science is. — Qmeri

Nuclear physics is quite at the core of physics and totally mainstream, actually. And is just as reliable as anything else in science.

And it isn't "mainstream science" vs. "fringe science". What you have are "mainstream schools of thought" and then other schools of thought. You can have in Quantum Physics the "Copenhagen Interpretation", but that doesn't mean at all the science itself would be different.

That science is basically made by a scientific community that uses peer review, replicates experiments and has a vast network for interaction is obviously true and should be noted.

However, not everything is made public and peer reviewed. For example, the production of nuclear weapons is a trait that isn't widely marketed and isn't knowledge widely published around the World even today, even if the actual technology is basically totally ancient: something that has existed for 75 years. When after Operation Desert Storm the UN inspectors inspected Saddam Hussein's actual nuclear weapons program (or it's remnants), not the utter fantasy project that George Bush later used as a lie to invade Iraq, they noticed that Iraq at that time was using (or trying to use) the technology of the 1940's to produce it's plutonium. Not the present technology that the Superpowers used during the Cold War (and still use). Details of that technology are still actually enforced quite well: any scientist having the knowledge of nuclear weapons technology will think twice before he or she sells know how to some willing party. Not only can you end up in jail, you can get literally killed for even trying.

Yet as technology is based on science and all that math and logic, same things can be invented even without prior knowledge from others and procurement of nuclear weapons and other valuable technologies can happen around the World without any interaction by the various secluded research communities. For example the Space Race between the US and Russia shows clearly how different technological solutions were used to overcome the same obstacles.

Good move from Trump.

EU likely won't do a thing.

Perhaps they (the EU) will go with classic Finnish response line give earlier on any international incident: "We urge all participants to show restraint and stride to a peaceful solution on this matter." :wink:

Something on those lines appears to be the EU way:

The EU has consistently called for a de-escalation of violence and a return to dialogue, and on Monday it responded to the siege at Hong Kong Polytechnic University by saying police use of force should be “strictly proportionate” and urging all sides to exercise restraint.

you seem to framing china as some sort of unstoppable force. The truth is they have many internal problems — Evil

I've always stated that they have huge problems starting from the structural problems of a totalitarian system. Fascism is an inherently weak and frail system: it views it's own members as potential enemies. It basically has to have an enemy, a threat to justify it's limitations on freedom. I wouldn't describe the present system as an unstoppable force, what it is incapable of doing is reinventing itself and renovating an otherwise bankrupt political system.

It's the thing we call the 'Ivory Tower'. Too many times science becomes a group of people referring each other and applying for various research money projects. Science as a job makes it quite bureaucratic. And once you get that academic position until retirement...

But on the other hand today it's very easy if you let's say have a totally new idea to contact people with similar ideas. Assume you have a radical insight or new approach to something in philosophy. Now if there is absolutely nobody touching similar issues at all, then likely you are simply put it, crazy. But otherwise with search engines you will find in no time people who have similar ideas to you. And if you are truly ahead of your time, then likely those others that have similar ideas will be glad to hear from you too.

Would philosophers gain such reputation if put in a setting like a forum? — schopenhauer1

Does anybody gain reputation on a forum like this? I mean a reputation in philosophy.

Perhaps concise and witty responses are favored and also those educational ones that truly help people to understand issues they are asking about, but that reputation here goes just so far. The first issue is of course the anonymity of the site. If we wouldn't be anonymous here and everybody would not only have to write on their own name, but also give their profession and degrees here, that would have an impact on the discussion at least a little bit.

And the second obvious issue is that there are only a few people here. If the philosopher would only interact with his or her ideas on this Forum, how would the World know of him?

Now I wouldn't want to overemphasize the social aspect in philosophy, but a Kuhn does make a point in highlighting the role of the consensus in the scientific community, the paradigm. And as humans we cannot avoid the ways how communities behave. Hence what we consider an 'important philosopher' is typically someone who the philosophic-scientific community respects as being a series important thinker in his or her field of study. And those are the one's that get their writings published in peer reviewed publications. That's how it goes. Publish or perish.

Unfortunately, we lose preciseness, structure, and depth in a forum setting. That is just the nature of how it works. However, even though I think notable philosophers would have some brilliant posts, they too would befall prey to the worst parts of participating in such a democratic, often hostile public setting, where their arguments are subject to a multitude of objections and if arguing in good faith, would have to counter all of them, sometimes at once. — schopenhauer1

They likely fell to similar responses in their time. It's only when the later generations respect the philosopher. I think it's highly coincidental that someone is put on a pedestal and treated as an important philosopher. What isn't so random is that schools of philosophy emerge in an distinct period of time.

How much would we know about Socrates without Plato? How much would we know about Greek philosophy if the Persians would have destroyed all Greek cities and communities and replaced the people in Greece with some other people and hence utterly annihilated Greek culture? Yet a philosophical school interested in math and logic and creating a basis for proto-science is something that likely would have happened sooner or later even without Socrates et al.

My point is what is it the anxious Jews making this intervention think is going to happen? — Punshhh

There is one point to be made here. That is that politicians in power do regulate and move the limits of the Overton window. Hence if it's totally acceptable of referring to an "international cabal of bankers running the World", then there's only a small step to add the J-word in front of the bankers. And these are the subtle things that then do add to anti-semitism.

Yet persecution of Jews in the modern state is of course a whimsical outrageous idea. And the whole narrative of "Jews leaving the UK" is just similar talk like we heard in 2016 election of "Americans leaving to Canada if Trump is elected". Basically it's nonsensical rhetoric that just adds to the polarization and division of the political landscape.

Besides, isn't it 'Silly-Season' there as you are going to have a general election in few weeks?

I'm not so sure about this.

You see, when I, as Finn, make an investment in a Finnish Mutual Fund that invests in Finnish companies, I have to sign a paper and declare that I'm not an American citizen and that I'm not paying taxes to the US. And that I'm not in a politically high place or a relative of someone that is in a politically high place. Thankfully I don't have to state anymore that I have not participated in the Holocaust (even if I was born in the 1970's, I did have to declare this kind of thing in the 90's thanks to US laws)

So I guess there is American supervision on these issues and the US has a quite long arm in these cases.

It's true that there is an anti-Semitic problem amongst members of the Labour Party, but what are they suggesting is going to happen if Corbyn forms a government in a hung parliament? — Punshhh

I would say Corbyn or the Labour party has nothing against Jews or the Jewish religion. Likely what has happened in their hatred of the international financial elite they just have been ignorant about how close their narrative comes to Hitler and anti-semitism. Because when talking about "the World being ruled by a cabal of international bankers", you have just taken out one word and that is Jewish and then you are talking exactly the same line as Adolf Hitler did.

Hence when Corbyn defends some mural like this (before he admits that it was wrong defend it), there is the case of him being an anti-semite.

"The Enemy of Humanity"


And then there is the leftist Middle East policy. So Corbyn talks about Hamas and Hezbollah as 'friends' and naturally is very critical of the actions that Israel takes. And often anti-Israeli views are interpreted to be anti-semitic views.

As a foreigner I'd say this a red herring or typical mudslinging of modern politics.

Trump has been making deals for half a century so I suspect you have little clue what you’re talking about. — NOS4A2

What does Trump's deals in earlier life have to do with him being a sycophant to Putin as the POTUS?

Trump has a history of business failures so I suspect you have little clue what you're talking about. Obviously he does have skills with negotiating loans with banks. And a successful rich father. But still, that has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's devotion to Putin.

It's you that has the utter incapability of looking at Trump objectively. If anybody says something critical about Trump, all you see is snobbery, a leftist media attack, dems dissing Trump and Trump supporters, an example Trump derangement syndrome. In fact, any kind of critique of the guy makes you defend him. As I've said, you just see others as Trump haters. And basically you parrot your line just the same way as a social just warrior would.

Yes, while true believers were happy, even giddy, with the spying and costly investigations into American citizens because some Russian trolls dared to tweet on Twitter, Trump had the crazy idea to make amends with Russia. While true believers pretended a hack on the DNC was tantamount to Pearl Harbor, Trump remained a little skeptical. It turns out only one side had the hair-brained idea. — NOS4A2

But NOS4A2, I'm not talking at all about the time era the whole Mueller investigation was about. I'm not talking about the 2016 elections or earlier times. I'm talking about what a huge sycophant the US President has been towards Vladimir Putin.

It was a neo-McCarthyite conspiracy theory. — NOS4A2

Nonsense.

I've never seen the US President be such a sycophant that conforms the Russian president's views as Trumpov has done. Whatever the reason is, I don't know, but sure it is strange.



But luckily Trump is such an inept president that he cannot steer his administration away from normal US foreign policy. Just rocking the boat isn't the same as changing it's course. And of course he first manned his cabinet with generals that weren't friendly to Putin (with one exception, that was gone in days). Luckily!

In reference to the media, it is almost entirely anti Corbyn and is only slightly critical of Johnson. It's more a case of the media not knowing how to deal with the unprecedented way the government is behaving, allowing it to get away with far more than would usually be the case. — Punshhh

Well, I could say the media has been a bit more than slightly critical of Johnson, but that is a matter of opinion. Yet do notice that both Corbyn and Johnson have picked up support for themselves.

Also the division between leave and remain is so deep, that to a large extent it doesn't matter anymore what anyone says, or does. This is why Johnson can get away with his behaviour, which is very uncharacteristic of the behaviour of a PM in this country. — Punshhh

I think that this deep division is happening very much everywhere. It's happening because of populism. One of the core principals of populism is to separate people to "us" and "them". Trying to search a consensus or try to search for a middle ground isn't done, it's actually intentionally avoided as "the other" is depicted to be so bad. And naturally the whole Brexit -process is a dividing cause. You could have just voted "yes" or "no" for brexit. That divides the people into two distinct categories.

Intentionally or unintentionally the dividing rhetoric and politics creates more lasting "camps" on the issue you can start to see generational, societal, differences as you Punshhh note in your later comments in this thread.

A question that arose in that thread, that concerns me is why aren't the majority of Abrahamic religions more left-leaning rather than being conservative in nature? — Wallows

There is a simple and utterly natural reason for this.

And the answer is in the overt historical hostility of mainstream socialism, which is deeply ideological and inherent in leftist thinking. That many leftists are atheists isn't just a coincidence, but totally reasonable end result. Religion is the opium for the masses, something that the class enemy uses. And now when religion is losing popularity in the West, there's no reason for to approach especially Christianity.

You might find things in Abrahamic religions that seem to share things with socialism and be against capitalism, like Jesus being so against the money lenders or Muslims simply being against banking with interest. Well, a lot of things are universal and these issues have been around before modern socialism. Even liberalism and socialism share things too.

People participating in an Philosophy Forum ought to be open to totally different views and be able to defend their own. The best thing that this site offers me is a place to engage with people who don't share my views. It's makes me firmly believe in democracy.

After all, the trolls, flamers and the real simpletons will be taken out to the forest and shot by the admins.