Wrong. In court, Carter's defense consisted of claims that she was exercising her free speech. The Massachusets Supreme Court ruled her speech was not protected because it was, "integral to a course of criminal conduct."

The same applies to Trump's incitement. There are limits to the exercise of free speech.

Just what we need: more authoritarian pantywaists in power chilling free speech. This is a show trial in a kangaroo court — NOS4A2

Michelle Carter exercised her free speech by encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself. She didn't kill him, so why should SHE have been punished when she was just exercising her free speech?

Must we insist that explaining consciousness at a mechanistic level any easier than explaining the subjective first-person experience aspects of consciousness? My hunch is that the so-called easy problem of consciousness at a mechanistic level is equally as difficult as the so-called hard problem at the subjective level. They might even be the same problem. — Wheatley

The "easy problem" is easy because it entails describing certain mental activity as mechanisic/algorithmic processes. It's true we can't map that into neurological activity (so it's still "hard" in that sense), but it's "easy" in the sense that mechanisic/algorithmic processes are consistent with physicalism.

The "hard problem" is hard because it entails mental activity that isn't describable mechanistically. Is that fatal? I don't think so, but it does mean we need to account for these mental functions in some novel way.

Makes a lot of sense.

I think it's just a matter of accepting that some truths are time-indexed, like:

John attended Reagan Elementary school from September 1960 through May 1968.

To be true, the truthmaker (or correspondence) needs to exist somewhere in spacetime.

You have a lot of valid concerns, but what is your wish list of things for a President (your ideal of a President) to do?

Robert Mueller chose not to make a prosecutorial decision regarding Trump's Obstruction of Justice. This was based on two things: 1) the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum, which opines that a sitting President cannot be indicted. 2) Mueller's sense that it would be unfair to make a judgment that the President cannot defend outside of a courtroom.

Mueller included this quote from the OLC memorandum: "Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over"

Mueller lays out a case for a potential indictment for Obstruction of Justice, that over 1000 former federal prosecutors signed off on as meeting necessary legal hurdles for an indictment.

Personally, I think it would be good for the country to proceed with the indictment, once he leaves office. By going through this, it will establish once and for all that a President is not above the law.

If prosecuted, I'd like to see Biden pardon him - just to show that this was not the sort of political vendetta that Trump so long desired against Democrats.

Not true at all. Most people didn't pick Biden in the primaries because they liked him, but because they thought he was "electable" and most people picked him in the general because he wasn't Trump. They made their decision not based on what they want, but on what they thought other people want. — Mr Bee

That's absurd. ~Trump carry's with it a set of related wants: judges with a broader view of civil rights, better cooperation with international partners, immigration reform, rescuing Obamacare, commitment to rule of law, and to the Constitution. These characteristics were present for all the Democratic candidates, so it made the most sense to me to support the Democrat most likely to win. (And given the closeness if the election, this appears to have been the right choice).

Setting aside issues of infinity, the set of non life-permitting universes is vastly larger than the set of life-permitting universes, so if we were surveying the multiverse (and it contained universes where the constants were different), we would very very rarely see any universes with life. Therefore, the odds of a universe being life-permitting are not the same as the alternative, as you claim. — RogueAI

If there is a multiverse, with a universe for each possible set of values, then it is a certainty that there will be at least one that is life-permitting. Obviously, we would find ourselves in such a universe, so there's no relevant implications.

But let's suppose there is only one universe, and the parameter values are entirely due to chance. The specific set of parameters of our universe is just as (im)probable as any other set. When all possibilities are equally improbable, there are no relevant implications when one of these low probability sets "wins" the universe lottery. Someone had to win.

Yes, this universe is life-permitting. It is as also binary-star permitting, uranium permitting, black-hole permitting, ... and many, many other x-permittings. So what? With other set of parameter values, different sets of things would exist.

The firing-squad analogy isn't an argument for God. It's argument that you can, in certain situations, be surprised by discovering you're alive. — RogueAI

OK, but this is the same sort of surprise that a lottery winner has when he wins: the odds were against it, but it has no relevant implications.

Life is low probability, but low probability things happen all the time.

It's odd because most people choose the candidate that they believe will result in policies they prefer, not just because they like the person's style. Furthermore, many Republicans voted for Trump in spite of his style, and other Republicans voted against him because of his style.

So....no substantive predictions. Nothing that will have a broad impact on Americans. That seems odd.

His only way out of the despair and to try to save face, is to try to make some sham of a legal challenge sound credible. Then when it fails in a few weeks time to grudgingly acknowledge the transfer of power and claim that he will be back in four years. He will need to save face with his base. — Punshhh

Multiple court challenges are inevitable, but I'm skeptical there will be any acceptance. He will go to his grave asserting he's been robbed.

The trouble is that this route will only dig a deeper hole as the US public hates a sore looser.

I wish that were true. His supporters will continue to believe everything he says. I wouldn't br surprised if he still has rallys.

I fear more of the same, specifically the public relations politics, where an administration can get away with anything so long as it utters the fashionable bromides and ticks the right identity boxes. — NOS4A2

That's a prediction about style. What bad thing will Biden actually get away with?

I think Biden's record with race and segregation and war and corruption and lies is well enough known to predict that it won't be the best of administrations.

You will judge it "not the best" no matter what happens. Make specific dire predictions you will stand by.

Hey Nos - Make some predictions for the next 4 years. Share your worst nightmares.

If they further amplify the accusation of fraud, more and more people will believe it. — Echarmion

That's true, and it's why we should embrace their taking it to the courts, where actual evidence is needed.

What if he tries to start some international crisis? What will the military chain of command do if Trump gives them some dangerous order? Remember, the military is all about chain of command, chain of command, chain of command. Who in that chain of command is going to stand up and say, "Nope, we ain't doing that"? — Hippyhead

A military officer needn't obey an unlawful order. I think this may provide enough wiggle room to refuse to nuke another country. Plus, Trump is isolationist to the core, and he still craves the love of his minions. Finally, he has this fantasy of running again in 2024.

What kind of trouble might a humiliated narcissist cause during the transition? — Hippyhead

He's going to pardon himself, his family, and all his henchmen.

The biggest danger is that some armed right-wing groups will start some trouble, and Trump will praise and encourage them.

The values of a bunch of physical constants are "balanced" on a knife-edge for life to exist in the universe. If they had been just a little bit different, the universe would have failed in some spectacular way. — RogueAI

Failed at what? Was the universe required to produce life?

If we assume those fundamental constants could have differed, then this universe (which happens to be life permitting) is low probability - but the exact same low probability as every alternative. Each of the n possible universes had a 1/n chance of winning, so it was a certainty that the winner would be that low 1/n probability.

Every lottery winner is surprised when he wins, but it's not the sort of surprise that should lead anyone to think the lottery was rigged for that outcome.

Suppose you are to be executed by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen — RogueAI

The problem with the firing squad analogy is that it treats life as a target. So if you assume God wanted to create life, it implies he had to finely tune the constants to meet that goal. So as an argument for God's existence, it's circular.

Solipsism has been a wound on my mind, mostly because it's unproveable and unrefutable. Some people say it's true, some believe it, some say it's the default position and that the solipsist doesn't need evidence but the realist does. I'm not sure who to believe to be honest and I'm rather weak on this matter. — Darkneos

Contrary to your assertion, I don't think anyone believes solipsism is true. It's a hypothetical viewpoint, and it teaches us something.

Why is no one a solipsist? Because we have a innate way of perceiving the world, and it includes recognition that there is a world external to ourselves, and there are other beings. This constitutes a belief that solipsism is false.

Consider what it takes to change a belief. Usually, it's because we encounter contrary evidence. Occasionally, it's because we decide the basis for our belief is suspect (the latter is what leads some theists to atheism). But there's no evidence for solipsism, and the basis is innate - which is consistent with evolution.

Clinging to a belief doesn't prove the belief is true, but the mere possibility that it's false is not a good reason to drop it. Face it: you really do perceive an external world. If you'd never heard of solipsism, you'd never have entertained it.

Since solipsism can't be disproved, you should accept that it is logically possible, but this ought not to concern you. Let it be a lesson that we have beliefs that can neither prove nor disprove, and be OK with it.

n any case of course they're trying to shame you into (theoretically) voting Biden her — BitconnectCarlos

Is that really true? Is anyone really trying to NOS4A2 to vote for Biden?

I'm not. I just try to understand why he (and others) supports Trump, and to assess whether or not his judgments are principled or thoroughly partisan.

My impression is that many people use the term "fascist" inappropriately. What they're trying to convey is someone is conveying a point of view that is similar to that of the guy who wrote these words:

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.

Trump is horrible at bringing people together, but the Dems are no better — Hanover

I agree with much of the sentiment in your post, but have a problem with this part.

When Trump gets criticized for some nastiness, his supporters cry out, "yeah, but look what leftest person X said. " But Trump is one guy, who says this crap constantly. No single person on the left is like that. Nearly everyone says something inappropriate at times, but no single person is a firehose of constant divisive bullshit. This is Trump's claim to fame, or flame. If he loses, it will be a message that we won't tolerate this behavior. If he wins, it encourages more of the same.

No one can deny that the apostles believed Jesus resurrected, but that begs the question on what basis do they have this belief? It is either the case that Jesus physically resurrected or that an alternative explanation must be true. — Josh Vasquez

False dichotomy. We don't really know exactly what the disciples believed. There is a poem that asserts Jesus "appeared" to various people, but the most likely explanation is that some of them sensed his presence - which is a common experience of people who have lost a loved one.

Regarding martyrdom, there's no good evidence of anyone dying for insisting they'd seen a resurrected Jesus.

Your entire argument is boilerplate apologetics that Christians tell each other, and accept uncritically, that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

do you think Hunter's involvement with Burisma had nothing to do with his dad being VP and his dad having made prior efforts to clean the place up? — Hanover

It certainly had everything to do with his dad being VP. I would prefer that people not capitalize on their parent's position (are you reading this Ivanka and Jarred?)

Do you really think Joe got zero financial benefit from that or that he had no idea what his little boy was up to?

There's no evidence of it, and fanciful speculation ought not to be reported as fact.

Do you think there is no story here at all and that it ought not be reported by any news outlet other than Fox and that Facebook and Twitter should block it?

I'm fine with reporting facts, and the facts include the murky means by which these emails became available. They also include the content of those emails, along with their dubious authenticity.

I'm not fine with reporting that the facts constitute "smoking gun" evidence that a crime was committed, because they don't in the least. If the emails are accurate, it suggests Biden agreed to meet with someone. Shall we list the people Trump has met with that seem somewhat suspicious?

The excessive military presence around the world.
A burgeoning police-state. The corporate corruption of the political process. The gradual erosion of constitutional rights. — Merkwurdichliebe

These are reasonable concerns, but "shining a light" on them will not get a majority to agree these are problems, much less agree on how to solve them.

If someone with the authority and influence of the US president was merely to shine light on the real issues that are never included on the ballot, I imagine the system would quake, and possibly open the door to real systemic change. — Merkwurdichliebe

Please elaborate. Give me a few of the "real issues."

IMO, Trump has shined a light on some of the big issues in our society: he's exposed racism, xenophobia, self-righteousness, pettiness, and intolerance of disagreement. I don't believe this exposure is helping, I think it has hurt, because these things have been encouraged.

I'm surprised I forgot it too. I'll edit the post.

What is achieved by shaking shit up?

Choosing who to vote for, or choosing not to vote, is about predicting two futures and deciding which is better. You seem to believe either future is equally bad. That's a good reason not to vote.

I believe the future is better with Biden. Policy-wise, I want the ACA to survive and be improved, likely with a public option. Trump wants to eliminate it. I want real immigration reform; that will never happen with Trump. I want Social security rescued - that's much more likely with Biden. I want more judges who have an expansive view of human rights, and Trump is guaranteed to appoint the opposite. With dems in power, there's a better chance of moving in a better direction on climate change, with Trump - well, he doesn't admit there's a problem.

There's more, but these are my top issues.

By contrast, with Trump, we'll get the wall completed, and perhaps a head added to Mount Rushmore.

Even if I believed, as you do, that they're both assholes, I still have good reasons to vote for Biden.

if you make something with that function, it will both exhibit that behavior, and undergo that experience. — Pfhorrest

That is clearly not true: it fails the zombie test. A zombie could respond to pain as we do: noting damage, seeking remediation, future avoidance, shouting "ouch" but this omits the feeling.

I literally do not give a shit about Trump retweeting whatever trash he happens upon while internetting. You couldn't pay me to give less fucks. If you continue to be surprised and outraged by such behaviour, you deserve a shithead like Trump. — StreetlightX

I'm explaining my point of view, not criticizing yours. But I am sad that there are so many people who don't care that the president tells such blatant untruths. It's bad enough that politicians tend to spin facts; at least there's a core of fact. If all politicians were to give us Trumpian level fiction, the last bit of influence by the people would evaporate.

I know you disagree, so no need to point that out. But I would like to understand your vision of the ideal President. What would he do?

The scorn heaped upon Trump's personal (rather than political) behaviour had always had a humongous element of classism built into it. — StreetlightX

Trump retweets an implausible conspiracy theory about a staged killing of bin Laden, defends doing so because he doesn't know if it's true or not, and he wants people to judge for themselves. So you think the judgment of that is due to classism. I strongly disagree.

That he does it while being a clown makes him no less establishment. — StreetlightX

What's unique is that this clown-like behavior is the core of his appeal to his supporters.

I disagree. Trump is an incredible politician, in that he really knows how to connect with certain people and motivate them. Suppose he motivates a 90% turnout of his supporters: he will win.

He's not in the same category as Trump. More in the same category of being an establishment politician like Hillary Clinton, except without the toxic image, which is why he'll likely do far better than she ever did. — Mr Bee

Trump has certainly not been establishment. Was that a good thing?

I wonder if the 2016 Bernie supporters who voted for Trump are truly happily with what they got.

That's not an answer. Explain the physical-immaterial interface, both input and output. Is there a single point of access into the brain? Can the mind directly access every component of the brain? Can my mind interact with physical things other than my brain? If not, why not?

What becomes of the mind when the brain is dead? Did it exist before my body? If not, when did it come to exist? Did it pop into existence all at once, or did it slowly develop, like the brain?

Have you heard the theory that the memory is stored in the tissue of the body, analogous to tape recording, and the brain mere acts as the processor for accessing those memories? I think there is a name for it but I can't recall. ironic huh? — Merkwurdichliebe

How does an immaterial mind extract the data in a physical medium? The mind also stores data into the brain: we can remember past thoughts, so it can't just be a passive reading.

Negative, destructive passions? You mean like drones strikes on foreign land? — Merkwurdichliebe

No, I mean things like normalizing degradation of those with whom we disagree, and stoking hatred and division.

You need to account for the mind-brain relationship. For example, you say the mind is immaterial, but is it spatially located? If so, where is it? My thoughts can cause me to raise my hand. Why can't my thoughts cause your hand to raise?

Thoughts draw on memories. Aren't memories stored in the brain? Memories become lost, or at least inaccessible, when the brain is damaged by trauma or disease. How do you account for that? If memories are in the brain, how does an immaterial mind access them? If my mind can access my memories, why can't it access yours?