Narrative alert! Narrative alert! There is a subordinate among us. Eliminate! Eliminate!

Regardless, someone just ban him. — Maw

Calling all fellow goons. Calling all fellow goons. We appear to have someone stepping out of line.

Yes. If by triggered, you mean, frustrated that somehow, claiming that .... — Akanthinos

What the hell are you on about??? — Akanthinos

Is that the appropriate tone, do you think, for asking a question? This is why I used the triiger term.

Mueller (the man who most likely cost Clinton the throne, by the way) — Akanthinos

Feel free to posit your theory.

There's been a triggering! Toys thrown from cots!

Please lecture me on the finer points of politics, oh infallible wise one — Benkei

More examples of a juvenile state. A state that also tends to believe the dogma of it's religion, that of Statism. Mueller seems to be the current leader of a statist cult.

"You've allowed your opinion of me to affect your analysis of my words, I feel.

The evidence of this is your personal vitriol."

You do like to play the victim too as evidenced by about half of your posts, of which this is just another example. — Benkei

You would like to think I am a victim but it is merely an observation of your state as expressed in your words.

Examples: "paranoia-overdrive"
"divorced from reality"
"pathetically elitist"


This is an exhibition of a juvenile state of emotion. A defensive reaction when intellectually challenged.

Even those people are allowed mistakes — Benkei

There is no excuse for such a "mistake" when you are talking about a team of operatives and lawyers.

It is just not feasibly possible that such an entire sophisticated entity could be so clumsy. It's political gamesmanship and the bluff was simply called out.

These people are intelligence and political operatives with many collective years of spying, counter spying and audience manipulation.

One has to be particularly naive to not realize the game. The naivety factor is the companion of juvenile states of consciousness.

And the complaint as if people aren't allowed to make mistakes — Benkei

Not such potentially deadly "mistakes" as those who have such powers ("elite" powers) as Mueller.

Due process has some protection from such "mistakes".

The remedy should be obvious. Indict AND allow such due process as 'discovery'

Without the two together is a description of tyranny.

You've allowed your opinion of me to affect your analysis of my words, I feel.

The evidence of this is your personal vitriol.

Incompetent law enforcers is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands.

I don't even know where to point where you're going wrong — Benkei

Can't point to where I am wrong?

A true statement indeed.

Also, if Mueller's tactic was merely some technical error then he can hardly be trusted as to his competence.

One requires due process to also protect from the dangers of incompetence.

Pretty sure Prince Harry did. — Michael

You forgot to add lol at the end there.

I said indictments of persons related to an ongoing investigation can interfere with that investigation due to the possibility of discovery procedures — Benkei

How on earth could such a well resourced make such a tactical error merely for those reasons?

They know what is due process therefore would have taken discovery into account.

It appears that the tactic was employed because they were confident the indicted party would not bother to respond on account of the fact they know they cannot be physically got at.

Fortunately, there was something interesting there that made me agree that it was a tactical error to indict these parties due to opening up the possibility for discovery procedures that could interfere with ongoing investigations — Benkei

Therefore, what you are effectively saying, is that following the law is not necessary as a way of getting to the truth as to whether any laws were broken,

and that what IS necessary is the employment of "tactics" toward getting a result of an impression someone is guilty of something.

A verdict without DUE process seems to be the goal of these tactics.

So what do you conclude from that? — Benkei

My conclusion is that an indictment isn't a guilty verdict.

There's a saying that says you can indict a ham sandwich,

As long as you're having fun. That's the main thing.

Maybe do a better job of comprehending what members in this forum are saying, especially when they are directly replying to what you write? — Maw

Your opinion on this matter is noted and dismissed. Thanks for your time.

Hanover is referencing what you said here: "Of course a so-called 'member' of a 'minority' group should not be protected from merely feeling uncomfortable about someone else's words," you goober — Maw

Are you his keeper? Is this the goon squad?

Russian company indicted by Mueller shows up in court

Mueller served Concord Management.

Concord Management responded by showing up.

Mueller's team was forced to argue that their service of the indictment was improper in order to delay proceedings.

Mueller never expected this Russian company to respond and now Mueller is trying to step away from the case he invented.

A federal judge denied Mueller’s request to delay the court date, so he decided not to show up.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/mueller-would-prefer-not-to.php?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw

I think the minority member's argument would be that they ought be protected from discrimination based upon their minority status and laws need to be passed to that effect — Hanover

In what way is he or she a "minority member" of this forum anymore than I am based on my views?

but I thought the idea was not to make minorities extremely uncomfortable. — FreeEmotion

There is no group rights and nor should there be.

Of course a so-called "member" of a "minority" group should not be protected from merely feeling uncomfortable about someone else's words.

There should be no such special rights for someone just because of their skin color or religion or ethnicity within a nation's laws.

When I feel that my views are going to be attacked, and in a most impolite way, I no longer feel free to speak. That is just my opinion — FreeEmotion

You merely feel you no longer feel free to speak. If you no longer speak then that is an action you choose.

You choose to continue to speak or you choose to discontinue. You are exercising free speech either way.

And "public figures" should not be immune from being referred to as idiots merely because they appear on media.

like being called a 'clueless idiot — FreeEmotion

Saying this doesn't interfere with another saying something else.

Being "insulted" doesn't interfere with your speech. And anyway, "insult" is a personal sensation or feeling of the one whom apparently feels insulted.

but Queen Elizabeth wrote about how she and her Father the King were nearly killed during one of the strike — Maw

Elizabeth always sticks to her script. Have you not noticed that?

Now why is it, do you think, that Royal family members never appear as soldiers on the front line? Or any Rothschild family member for that matter (actual surname Bauer).

Except Buckingham Palace was hit by several bombs during The Blitz — Maw

Comparatively minimally for an easy sore thumb of what should have been a prime target.

Further; Do I believe Donald Trump would heroically lead a 2nd revolution for American independence?

Ah, no I do not.

Damn, you are really going full tin-foil hat aren't you? — Maw

You would make the ideal patsy due to your naivety. They would have you dressed up in a brown shirt before you know it.

War is the finance game. When do these financiers make inroads? First wars are orchestrated causing depressions. This is when assets are accumulated because they go for a song. Therefore when the tide comes back assets are inflated accordingly. It's an obvious and successful business model.

Did the Germans bomb Buckingham Palace during the London blitz? Such an obvious and strategic target IF one was trying to undermine British morale.

But no.

Essentially anything you see is everything else you don't see.

Nah. just back right out of interfering in other countries and plug the holes in the border. Taxing corporations merely causes corporations to pass that tax bill on to ordinary consumers of their businesses.

Stop "fucking over" countries is how it should start.

After all, the US is only a colony of the British monarchy and their financiers such as the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and their ilk. A full independence for the US is the only hope. A 2nd revolution is required as the 1st one was eventually countered over time by the usual war bandits.

However, I think it can be argued that all previous administrations, “the Swamp”, orchestrated those conditions.

It is therefore incumbent on a new administration to not only stop those heinous manipulations of other countries but to also not make USA citizens continually pay for them. After all, the political and corporate elites are not the ones who ultimately pay for the all of those acts.

was that we should respect another person's opinion, even if we hate it. — FreeEmotion

I don't think we should respect other's opinions. The point you may have been attempting to make is we ideally respect a right to HAVE an opinion (that we might hate). The right to have an opinion and then expressing it is what is meant by freedom of speech.

Even if he's right about science being fundamentally politically-entwined, the optics aren't good. — csalisbury

A problem if someone is right?

How strange.

"Optics" are politic speak. It sounds as though what matters most to you is the politics. And it is a problem when politics entangles itself in science. When science does not suit the politics of the day science inevitably gets manipulated.

Always about power and money.

Is he right? It doesn't really matter. This is a glaring red target for anyone on the other side. — csalisbury

You make it sound it does matter. If it doesn't matter then why are you seemingly sounding alarms merely on the point that he says climate science is complex?

Like I said "Otherwise this will go nowhere" yep that's correct I wanted to make this conversation more convenient, only? communication is very important on a philosophy forum. — Blake Kelson

If it is only about convenience then questioning is sort of irrelevant. One may as well just conclude what merely APPEARS to be the case.

For convenience, therefore, one may as well conclude that our skulls are just like a building and our eyes are merely windows of the building from which we look through to see the "outside" world, and maybe even a tree.

There. See how convenient it is just to believe only in your sensory perception? Not even any need for the inconvenience of science let alone logical thought.

I think we need to get our definitions straight otherwise this will go nowhere. Like I said I'm no expert but I would go with the definition that consciousness is the ability to be aware of the external environment. That ability appears to be produced by parts of the brain. The tree is in the external environment — Blake Kelson

Although definitions aren’t reality. Definitions a mere symbols. Definitions are only for the convenience of speech.

In effect there is no “external” environment. We, the process we are, arise WITHIN environment.

And where does environment even begin or end?

Technically “environment” has no edge therefore cannot be defined as a thingor defined area.

Technically, therefore, “environment” is Consciousness within which every phenomena arises.

We, our “brains”, must therefore arise WITHIN consciousness rather than being organs which PRODUCE consciousness.

We, some electrical process, do not produce consciousness but rather merely PERCIEVES consciousness in a particular electrical manner.

This particular human electrical process, the “brain”, is only evident as the perception that it is.
.

(Little bit of poetic license there.) — Baden

You won't need to license it. It's already protected as being definitively yours by the mere fact others will not want to claim it as theirs.

(It is merely my humor, however cynical it may be. It's not necessarily a product of offence taken. I try never to blame another for any offence I choose to take.)

I'm not an expert on how consciousness functions but yes I believe the outside world such as a tree exists independently from my own awareness of it. — Blake Kelson

But the tree is "in" consciousness.

And yet, as you stated:

"Consciousness is formed from various parts of the brain, correct? Although there is no central point your consciousness is emanating, it still originates from the brain not outside it"

If the tree is not "in" consciousness, then where is it?

Is it "outside" consciousness, while given that, apparently, "it (consciousness) still originates from the brain not outside it"?

What would have to be provable? That they were discriminating? Isn't that how things stand? — Baden

How things stand where?

I hope not. — Baden

You hope they would not follow their own philosophy?


Right. Says a lot.

One rule for oneself but for others not.

Weren't you earlier defending the law's tyranny against illegal immigrants though? — Baden

Constitutional law. It is not under constitutional law to make a Christian baker not discriminate against a customer who wants from them a gay wedding cake.

And it is not "tyranny against immigrants".

The border defines the boundary which defines the country.

To start with, immigrants have immigrated via immigration protocols. Protocols of a country of which those who are not said immigrants are not citizens of that very same country.

Maybe you do not know what country you live in.

Someone who refuses someone on the basis of their race is a racist and definitely engaging in discrimination, which shouldn't be allowed. — Baden

We should be free to discriminate for any reason we choose.

We are therefore more encouraged to be honest.

If we are more honest then we a more out of the closet.

If we are more out of the closet, we are less suppressed.

The more suppressed we feel the more we are likely to oppress others.

The more honest about how and why we think and feel about things means we are more likely to face what others think and feel about those things.

I say let the true racists reveal themselves. Allow them that freedom.

Otherwise they will more likely perform horrible deeds as a closet racist pretending not to be.

Engage them by welcoming them into conversation. They may change their mind at some point.

If they don't, who cares?

Ironically (maybe), this is apparently the sign in the window of The Red Hen:

"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend"

Do you think this philosophy was in play when they addressed Sarah Sanders?