• Resources for identifying fake news and intentional misinformation
    he “Russian misinformation” canard is itself misinformation. Have you ever seen a single piece of Russian misinformation? — NOS4A2
    02-text-vote.w700.h467.jpg
  • Is the President (prime minister, etc) an overrated figure?
    If it is in the constitution, shouldn`t it be "recognized" by everyone? — Nobeernolife
    Sure- in an ideal world, all voters would understand this and other information pertinent to making wise voting choices. TV commercials would be a waste of time and money would be much less relevant. We don't live in that world.

    Evangelicals aren't smarter than everyone else, they're just focused on abortion. Abortion became legal (nationally) by court action, and it's clear that court action can undo it. This provided a political lever. Pro-choice people (a strong majority of the populstion) aren't nearly as focused. Sure, they'd prefer women have choice, but it isn't a sine qua non for choosing whom to vote for, as it is with many pro-life people.
  • Resources for identifying fake news and intentional misinformation
    This was published a while back, — frank
    Interesting article. What I'm struck by is the environment Trump has encouraged, by labeling real news as "fake", and sometimes retweeting what is actually fake news.

    To your point, I think fact checkers are the most convenient tool.
  • Is the President (prime minister, etc) an overrated figure?
    ↪Nobeernolife
    That power was recognized by evangelical Christians - that's why they voted for Trump, and will do so again.
  • Does Rare Earth Hypothesis Violate the Mediocrity Principle Too Much?
    A materialist explains life as a consequence of a string of random events - and we don't really know what they are. Why should we expect life to be common? Further, given life - why think INTELLIGENT life is common? Humans evolved through a series of accidents - we were not inevitable.

    On the other hand, theism entails teleology: that the universe was designed to produce life. If life were common, especially intelligent life, that would be more consistent with teleology and theism.
  • Does Relativity imply block universe?
    General Relativity does not depend on block time, it merely depends on mathematically treating it in a manner analogous to spatial dimensions. That it should be treated this way does not establish this as ontological.
  • Is the President (prime minister, etc) an overrated figure?
    real political 'power' and influence lies in either in the legislature, or in the judges, at least as far as the system as a whole goes and works, who agrees with me? — IvoryBlackBishop
    The President appoints federal judges. That is a tremendous power, with the potential to have impact that lasts decades.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    What if it’s not a ‘collapse of a sector’ but a legitimate redistribution of resources? Why should shareholders profit from healthcare? They’re arguably transferring wealth from those unfortunate enough to fall ill. — Wayfarer
    It WOULD be a "legltimate distribution of resources" in the long run, and that's why I'm not opposed to it in principle. Regardless of that, there are severe, short term risks.

    Why should shareholders profit? Note that I pointed out that this may affect stocks generally, not just health care stocks. If all shareholders were billionaires, few would care if their wealth were dramatically reduced. But they aren't. Stocks are owned by pension funds, affecting firemen, policemen teachers union members,...and they are owned by many on their IRAs and 401Ks. Some retired people live off this. Many people have worked hard all their lives, sacrificed to save for retirement so that they have enough of a nest egg to live on, and then you cavalierly suggest they should suffer. Please.

    Do not forget that this isn't simply a choice between status quo and medicare for all. A public option gets healthcare for everyone, without the huge disruption. Furthermore, it has a chance of passing, while an imposed medicare for all does not. I will vote for Bernie, if he's nominated, but many won't because they fear the consequences of a plan that will never be implemented. So whether or not you accept anything I've said, know that it's a fear that will lose some votes. Trump won swing states by only a few thousand votes - it's these margins that will make the difference.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Sander’s medicare plan seems pretty similar to what Canada and Australia already have. Why Americans are so hysterically frightened of that baffles me — Wayfarer
    Here's some of the problems:
    First, fear of the unknown. Most people have health insurance of some kind, and although they may grumble about it, there's no guarantee "Medicare for All" will be an improvement. But the unknowns are substantial.

    What becomes of the medical insurance industry? I suspect most Bernie supporters don't care what happens to those fat cats, but keep in mind the industry employs a lot of people, and there are millions of stockholders (including people with a vested pension plan). . What impact will that have on the economy to lose jobs and household wealth? The collapse of this one sector could have huge impact on the economy as a whole.

    Medical insurance premiums will be replaced with taxes. That sounds fine in the long run and in the aggregate, but will this happen all a once, or phased in? How can it be phased in without creating massive deficits? When phased in, this will have the same effect as a revenue-neutral change in the tax structure - it's inevitable that there will be both winners and losers. Losers will not support the change. Losers include big unions who have negotiated great health plans. Even if "Medicare for All" matches their current plans (which may be unlikely), it means their negotiations were for naught. If the transition is not done in a revenue-neutral way, we're back to massive deficits.

    Will there be disruptions in service as the transition is made? There are good reasons to be concerned.

    If Bernie gets elected, I predict his promise of Medicare for All will never happen. At best, a Buttigieg-style "Medicare for those who want it" might pass (I don't know how likely that is, but I think that's the best anyone can hope for).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Oh dear. No genetic fallacy. Just pointing out she’s a globalist. — NOS4A2

    Fair enough, although labeling someone a "globalist", or any other kind of "-ist" suggests possibly making some unwarranted assumptions. Nevertheless, I gather you're just making some observations, and stating an ad hominem (stooge). Well and good, so I presume you'd still value her opinion, given her education and experience - right?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪creativesoul
    Yes, but I'd like to think that people participating on a philosophy forum would value critical thinking, so I think its appropriate to call out clear irrationality.

    Am I being irrational to do so?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    One of the people who testified against Trump, Fiona Hill, a Soros stooge, writes for an online magazine called “The Globalist”. You can’t make this stuff up. — NOS4A2
    Geez - Genetic fallacy upon genetic fallacy. A "Soros stooge" (whatever that refers to) is wrong because she's a "Soros stooge", not because something she says is irrational or false. And since she writes for a magazine called "The Globalist", she obviously has some false beliefs about the world, and therefore she's wrong.

    Thanks for providing another example of how to think irrationally.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Patrick Moore is not a CLIMATE scientist. This study provides the basis for my claim about the consensus of climate scientiests. It also discusses s a prior study (Tol) that concluded there was not much consensus

    Well, as you say yourself, the Tol study came to a different conclusion. Anyway, how productive is it boil down tens of thousands of different papers into a simplistics yes/no vote?     — Nobeernolife
    You're ignoring the fact that the Tol study does not constitute the consensus of those with the relevant expertise, and it did some cherry picking of individuals with contrary opinions.

    How productive is it? As productive as any argument from authority. Anyone is free to hold a contrary opinion, but they shouldn't expect it to be respected if it's based on non-authority opinions, cherry picking of authorities whose conclusions appeal to them, or on naive falsification (e.g. the models make these errors, so the general view must be false).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    and that if currrent trends continue, there will be disastrous consequences.]/i\

    Wow, hold the horses. Are you sure there is general consensus about THAT? I.e. Dr. Patrick Moore, an earth scientists himself, thinks that we are in a carbon starved period, and a little warmer and thus greener planet would be a good thing. Can quote a source about this "general agreement" about "disastrous consequences"?     — Nobeernolife
    Patrick Moore is not a CLIMATE scientist. This study provides the basis for my claim about the consensus of climate scientists. It also discusses a prior study (Tol) that concluded there was not much consensus

    "Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science."

    Perhaps you object to my use of the subjective term "disastrous", so let me just put it this way: if current trends continue, there will be very costly consequences.
  • Something out of nothing.
    My argument is that it is far more rational to believe in the possibility (not certainty) of a non-physical existence after physical death than it is to make something out of nothing - to argue for existential meaning in a purely physical existence. — CommonSense
    To be rational, there must be a rational justification for the belief. I haven't seen one, and I'm not going to read a book to see if it's buried in there somewhere.

    What is the "something" that you allege is from nothiing? Meaning? That woulld be reifying an abstraction.

    Walk me through your justification, and we can then assess whether or not it's rational.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    All the previous models have been wrong. — Nobeernolife

    Correction: they have been inaccurate, to varying degrees. The point is that this doesn't imply anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, it just means that we can't predict it accurately. Inaccuracy is not rational grounds to reject the general consensus view that the world is warming, that CO2 emissions is contributing to it, and that if currrent trends continue, there will be disastrous consequences. The inaccuracy only implies we can't know exactly when.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Michael
    ↪NOS4A2

    This article seems a good summary.

    Here's my takeaway:
    there was a plea deal, which granted Flynn probation in return for his cooperating with other investigations and prosecutions.

    Flynn chose to not testify in a particular trial because it would admit he knowingly lied on his filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)

    Prosecutors believe Flynn had already admitted to these false statements, so they regarded Flynn's refusal to testify as a breach of the deal.

    Because of the alleged breach, prosecutors changed the sentencing recommendation to jail time. They rethought this, and 7 days later, they reverted back to the original recommendation of probation.

    Flynn's attorneys are treating the temporary action as a breach of the plea deal. This opens the door for Flynn to withdraw hia guilty plea,if the judge approves.

    As a separate matter, Flynns current attorneys allege the original ones had a conflict of interest. This is another potential basis for withdrawing the plea.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪NOS4A2
    Yes, of course people should be charged when they lie to the FBI.

    I couldn't care less if Mccabe were prosecuted for lying, if that is the typical course of action for lies of a similar magnitude. But I'm sure you're aware that prosecutorial discretion filters out some lying charges, and fairness dictates that discretion be applied consistently. This discretion also provides a tool for investigators to seek additional information - as was the case with those charged through the Mueller investigation. There's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, there IS something wrong with Trump using such prosecution in a vendetta - and the judge perceived this may have been going on.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    It appears to be so. That’s a shame given that he lied to the FBI with all these others being jailed for doing the same. — NOS4A2
    That's a false equivalence. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying as a plea deal - they had other things on him. Had lyng been the only issue, he would have had no motivation to accept the deal.

    Of special note is a statement made by the judge in Mccabe's case. The judge, a George W. Bush appointee, said "the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted" was like a "banana republic." He told this to the prosecutors months ago, but it was only released today. Here's another example of Trump's inappropriarte nvolvement getting in the way of the impartial administration of justice.
  • Is a meaningful existence possible?
    Having an impact that is beyond our individual selves gives us meaning, unless you think our families and societies are irrelevant. — Relativist


    On a long enough time frame, sure.     — runbounder
    Consider the alternative of an eternal afterlife. How can anything you do in THIS brief life have a meaningful impact on that which exists eternally?
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    It's not only their fault, and it's not that they're all evil people. But we have to at least acknowledge their disproportionate influence on our society and our laws. It's all titled in their favor, predictably. You have to notice this. — Xtrix
    You are right about this, and all you said, but I'll add a root cause: people are stupid and lazy. If every voter took the time to analyze policy and candidates, they could (in theory) make a merit-based selection. It's sad that advertising blurbs make such a difference.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪NOS4A2
    Oh my. I'm getting embarrassed for you. Seriously, maybe you should take a break from this thread and try to make a contribution elsewhere.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Michael
    Speaking of that, what is your take on Barr's comments on Dumpertrumper's tweets ? Do you think there is an ulterior motive of sorts? — 3017amen
    Well, he spoke truth - but that doesn't preclude there being ulterior motives, some of which may be good (to save the sinking ship of the Justice Dept) and some might be selfish (his own reputation).

    It will be interesting to see how Trump reacts.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Michael
    ↪NOS4A2

    Trump admitted to send to Ukraine. Here's the audio: https://www.spreaker.com/user/9809239/roadkill-potus

    It starts at 21:43.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    All of these effects are caused by personal motivations, desires and feelings. If a judge or attorney or attorney general are influenced by a tweet they are in the wrong job. — NOS4A2
    You must also believe juries should never be sequestered, since if they're doing their jobs, they will not be influenced.

    You have a naive view of influence. It's not limited to conscious choices and perceived motivation.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪3017amen
    You actually think Trump will debate? I'm not so sure, but I do ponder who would be the best debate opponent. Mayor Pete is the most articulate and analytical, but this might result in only a technical victory on points. A debate with Sanders would be a battle between two outsider populists, both short on analytics - and that could result in peeling a few of the disenfranchised away from Trump, while turning off the analytically minded. I lean toward Pete, and anticipate that Trump will make an ass of himself by trying to ridicule Pete's homosexuality.
  • Relationship between our perception of things and reality (and what is reality anyway?)
    If something can't be perceived and there are no ways to measure it with tools, can it exist? — Samuele
    Dark matter can't be perceived. It's existence is inferred from indirect gravitational effects. Can you accept that it exists?

    Scientific theory often predicts the existence of things that have not been perceived, but eventually are detected. Should we assume they don't exist until actually seen, or should we at least accept the likelihood of their existence?
  • Is a meaningful existence possible?
    impermanence makes many (perhaps all) of the constructions of meaning actually meaningless. — runbounder
    Having an impact that is beyond our individual selves gives us meaning, unless you think our families and societies are irrelevant.

    Sure, it's transient - the human race will eventually disappear. Contrast this with a scenario of an eternal afterlife: is there anything we can do on earth (to give us meaning) that will have a long term effect on that eternal state of affairs?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Kudlow: New tax cuts will 'probably come out sometime in September' (link)

    Great! Just the remedy we need for the current state of unsustainable deficits. By sheer coincidence, this is planned for September, 2 months before the election.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" — tim wood
    Excellent point! For those who haven't googled the phrase: this.

    In Trump's case, I see only two possiblities: 1) he wants to influence the outcome 2) he's extremely stupid.

    Either of these possibilities show that he's unfit for the job.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    No, I just don’t understand how a tweet, whether it be from a president or celebrity or politician—anyone—can have an influence on a trial. I’m trying to understand a causal chain where that could be the case. — NOS4A2
    Here's some potential effects:
    -prosecutors wishing to curry favor might give him what he wants
    -prosecutors might feel undercut and harden their position against Stone
    -the judge may be influenced, either for or against
    -the attorney general might feel prompted to review the sentencing recommendation. How often does THIS happen? He obviously can't do that in every case, so this is uneven justice.
    - The attorney general might consciously or unconsciously apply more leniency that he would otherwise.
    -per Barr: it makes it difficult for him to do his job
    -it might have a negative effect on the people working in the justice dept if they perceive this as pressure to go soft on a friend.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Noah Te Stroete
    It's not totally irrelevant, but I agree it is considerably LESS relevant.

    My niece is an FBI agent. She doesn't talk to me directly about anything, but my sister (her mom) has told me that she perceives a huge morale problem in the FBI (she said something like, "who would like to be referred to as 'scum'?). I expect the problem pervades the entire justice department. Regardless of whatever else is going on, it is appropriate for the head of the Justice Dept to at least give lip service to the ideals they are pledged to. It's better than being called "scum".
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Noah Te Stroete
    OK, but would it have been better if Barr had pulled a Mike Pence, and lavished praise on Trump for sharing his innermost feelings? My point is there are worse things he could have said, and I don't know that there are things he could have said that would have been better.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Did the tweet have an effect? — Relativist


    It's the power of the tweet. So much plausible deniability in obstruction-by-tweet.     — ZzzoneiroCosm
    I'm reminded of Michael Cohen's description of the way Trump let you know he'd like you to buy him some tie he'd seen. Trump would never directly ask for the tie, he'd just talk about how nice the ties is, and how good he thinks he'd look in it.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Barr has to keep the DOJ together after four prosecutors resigned from the Roger Stone case and one altogether quit. — Noah Te Stroete
    That's very possible, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Don't kid yourself in him suddenly growing a moral backbone. — Benkei
    I'm not. But I think it appropriate to identify behavior that is at least superficially good. I think one's credibility is damaged when one finds fault with everything the "opposition" does, just as credibility is damaged when one refuses to see fault in anything your side does (like NOS4A2 does).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    First, it is not inappropriate to call foul on injustice. In fact I think it is quite appropriate — NOS4A2
    Ah, so you disagree with Barr.

    Our justice system is based on the premise of impartiality in its application. In his position as President, anything he says can potentially have an influence. So it is unequivocally wrong, and your inability to admit this suggests you truly think the man can do no wrong.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Relativist You believe that smokescreen by Barr? He’s working with Guiliani. — Noah Te Stroete
    He criticized inappropriate action by Trump. That was the correct thing to do. Contrast this with the typical things we hear: telling us how wonderful it is that he hear exactly what the President thinks.
    .
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    That's a valid complaint by Barr. The timing of Trump's tweet, though it agrees with Barr's assessment about the Stone case, has a tendency to fuel conspiracy theories among the Twitterati. — NOS4A2
    A conpiracy theory is:

    "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" source

    Trump's tweet doesn't suggest a conspiracy. Rather, it suggests he's interfering in the criminal justice process. And it IS an inappropriate interference- that's an unequivocal fact - and it's a clear counterexample to your claim that Trumps words don't matter.

    Did the tweet have an effect? It's possible. Trump's behavior casts suspicion - that's the consequence of doing something inappropriate.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Credit where credit is due: Barr is does something right...

    Barr blasts Trump's tweets on Stone case: 'Impossible for me to do my job': ABC News Exclusive
    In an exclusive interview, Attorney General Bill Barr told ABC News on Thursday that President Donald Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case” but should stop tweeting about the Justice Department because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”
Home » Relativist