"That's begging the question." — Vera Mont

Oh god, yes. I nearly forgot about that one. How many people who use “begging the question” actually know what it means? Maybe 10%, in my experience. The one’s who do understand it almost never use it.

I think people just like trotting out terms they think come from “philosophy.” About the only thing that occurs regularly is strawmaning, which isn’t so complicated.

“We don’t pay mooks.”

If you've read The Republic, how did you approach it? — dani

When I first read it, I was thinking it wouldn’t live up to the hype. But I was wrong — it really is important. It shouldn’t be intimidating, but I can understand why it would be, given — again —the way it’s been built up.

I’ve re-read it a few times and I also remember liking Will Durant’s synopsis of it. Happy reading!

And just how many persons from 1967 would know many from that list? — ssu

I’ve gradually added to the list. It made more sense in the original list. But good point.

Madonna, 122 years. — ssu

Hopefully not. Good lord.

:scream:

There is nothing wrong with pointing out a fallacy or saying "that's not an argument" so long as they at least offer an explanation for their comments. — L'éléphant

Sorry, but simply saying there is nothing wrong with it is not an argument.

:wink:

I hope you’re right. I’m not so convinced about the senate though.

When two climate geniuses agree, you know you’re on the right track. :victory:

That’s not an argument.

People are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to transition away from fossil fuels. — RogueAI

People make sacrifices all the time, especially for the oil industry. Whether they know it or not. The assessment that everyone needs to “sacrifice” for a green transition in the first place is silly — but even if true, since we all do it all the time anyway, it’s really yet another way of justifying the status quo. “Nothing can be done— the people don’t want to sacrifice!”

No thanks. If you feel nothing can be done, then go on doing nothing.

We're going to have to either hope for some tech miracle, hope the Earth is self-regulating in some way as to prevent warming from getting too bad, or geo-engineering our way out of it. — RogueAI

Yes, because your expert knowledge on this issue is definitely worth paying attention to. :up:

But really this is just given to divert attention and responsibility from Gaza. “But hey, what about all the OTHER bad things happening in the world?” — Mikie

So U.S. consumers aren't supporting China when they buy hundreds of billions of cheap Chinese crap every year? — RogueAI

:ok:

Perfection.

People aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary for real solutions. — RogueAI

Right, so it’s hopeless. Cool analysis. Bye.

aspects of China — Mikie

:up: Not comparable. China isn’t murdering thousands with US support /weapons.

Still should be paid attention to and condemned.

But really this is just given to divert attention and responsibility from Gaza. “But hey, what about all the OTHER bad things happening in the world?”

Pretty pathetic, really.

Question - would you be upset if Israel killed 15k Palestinians but they were all Hamas? What are your thoughts on the dead Hamas fighters? — Moses

If they were all Hamas fighters who engaged in murder on October 7th? I wouldn’t be upset, no. It wouldn’t change the causes of those actions, however.

Also what do you think about the much larger death tolls elsewhere in the world that receive virtually zero attention and zero mass protests? — Moses

Like what, exactly? Because I see nothing comparable to what Israel is doing. If you look at Sudan, or Congo, or Haiti, or aspects of China/India/Central America, or Yemen, or repression in Saudi Arabia, etc., there’s a lot we should be paying attention to.

The level of US involvement is what especially motivates me, however — as it’s the country I live in and can perhaps mildly influence. They’re currently providing the weapons and financial support that’s contributing to this genocide. I want that to stop, at a minimum.

The latest from our resident climate denial propagandist:

Here are some interesting comments about School Strike for Climate. — Agree-to-Disagree

Before even reading, I’m thinking to myself “Gee, I wonder if these ‘interesting comments’ will have a negative slant?”

Demanding that governments damage their economies in the name of climate science — Agree-to-Disagree

:lol: What complete bullshit.

The school strikes are heroic and inspirational, climate denial propaganda notwithstanding.

Thousands more dead, protests in Israel itself, and the world easily recognizing how horrid this genocide really is…

And through it all, the apologists on this thread keep fighting the good fight. Because “hamas.” Oh how complicated it all is!

Except when sub-humans do things. That’s easy to condemn, because they have bad intentions.

Unlike real, sophisticated humans, who might kill 100 times more babies, but have very good intentions. Also “Human shields” and so forth. Nothing to condemn there.

I prefer analysis, explanation, analogy, illustration, even pontification. — unenlightened

You excel at 1/5th of those! :wink:

Speaking of imbeciles. :lol:

Edit: sorry, that was mean. I’ll just put you on the ignore list— have fun with your future Tweets. Bye!

:rofl: Too bad for me!

Oh, and to clarify:

An argument is the presenting of reasons/evidence for a claim or conclusion. Really that simple.

Sorry, that’s “not an argument.” :rofl: Too bad for you!

Simply stating Biden is better than Trump on all issues — boethius

So you’re just in imbecile? Got it. My bad for engaging. Have fun with your straw men. Bye.

That's exactly what your argument is, that Biden is better on climate change. — boethius

No. My argument (so glad to know I have an argument now) is that given two choices, Biden is clearly better. Climate change is one example, and a good one.

Do we have to go over what “example” means, or do we need to incorporate “argument” and “fallacy” first? Maybe first principles…

so really by "significant difference" you mean zero practical difference but some difference in rhetoric, which you claim is important. — boethius

No, I mean significant. In comparison to Trump — who, again, believes it’s a hoax.

That you don’t know the impact of the IRA or EPA policy isn’t my fault. Your ignorance on this matter is indicative of the general struggle to determine who’s “better.” So again, my point is proven: you’re just not paying attention. I’ll be happy to go over the details— but I won’t hold my breath. I’m sure you’ll go on pretending that you’re an expert instead.

When I pointed out that climate change is only one dimension of evaluation you then respond to that just repeating your point about climate change. — boethius

You know, there’s an easy way to see what happened: go back and read.

I didn’t respond by repeating the point about climate change, I responding by explaining that climate change is ONE EXAMPLE.

“One dimension.” Laughable. It’s called an example. But please keep trying to intellectualize something a child can understand.

Not only have you presented no reason to believe Biden's duplicitous rhetoric, i.e. corrupts utterings in service of the oil lobby, is any better than Trump's overt utterings in service of the oil lobby in terms of consequence, you just ignore the other subjects such as Biden's complicity in a literal genocide. — boethius

No— this is your fabrication. I quoted what both men have said about climate change, which is evidence enough — but beyond that, mentioned the IRA of Biden and Trump policies and actions, including appointing an oil lobbyist as head of the EPA, as further evidence beyond simple rhetoric.

That you don’t remember any of this is your problem, not mine. Your delusions of “What happened” are pathetic, when there’s a clear record of it. Just scroll up.

Then, your guy, backs, finances, arms, helps coordinate, carries water for and covers with gaslights, encourages to "keep doing what they're doing", in participating in a literal genocide and it's "nothing to see here". — boethius

Which is why I’ve been condemning Biden and US policy both in Ukraine and Israel for years…also easy to look up.

God you’re delusional. (“My guy.” Lol.)

You provide one dimension of analysis, don't even argue that, then dismiss all the other dimensions of analysis in just stating Biden is better on everything. — boethius

No: I provide one example (and then many others), gave evidence, and have acknowledged your apparently one-track issue (war) many times, both here and for years on this forum.

But keep living in a fantasy if you want to. Pure strawmen — that’s all you’ve got so far, because you’re too childish to slow down and read carefully enough to comprehend what’s being written to you.

Sorry, but your self-serving narrative is blinding you from the reality.

The reality is this:

1) You made a ridiculous statement about there being “no basis” to determine whether Trump or Biden will be “better.”

2) I give one example where the differences both in ideology, rhetoric, and policy are stark.

3) You blather on about how that is “one dimensional analysis,” a “fallacy,” and “not an argument.”

4) Then you make up a bunch of bullshit out of thin air, creating strawman after strawman. Since that’s all you’re apparently intellectually capable of engaging with, I don’t blame you.

I’ll ignore the rest of your unlettered response. I’m sure it’s more of the same. Since you’re arguing against an imaginary opponent anyway, I don’t really need to be involved. The record is quite clear.

Trump versus Biden isn’t a hard choice.

That doesn’t mean Biden is “my guy,” it doesn’t mean his policies have been great, it doesn’t mean his foreign policy should be ignored, it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be criticized, it doesn’t mean he’s a good man, etc. It means exactly what I said in response to your ridiculous statement: given 2 choices, one is clearly worse than the other and we should vote against the worse one.

Very simple. Yes, I know you struggle with it— I’m clear. It’s clear you don’t find it simple or easy. But as I’ve said several times, the reason for this is that you’re not paying attention; you’re ignorant. That’s understandable when you’re focused almost exclusively on foreign policy — if I were in your shoes, perhaps I’d be confused to. But even on that point, there’s no good reason to believe a demented, megalomaniacal degenerate will do any better on foreign policy.

The fallacy is taking one dimension of evaluation and claiming it's conclusive. — boethius

Strawman.

I never did that. I gave ONE example that demonstrates ONE way in which there are significant differences and in which one administration is clearly better — which was in response to your difficulty determining such.

You are welcome to make the argument that Biden's complicity in genocide is a "no biggy" or even a positive. — boethius

Strawman. I never once said that. Stop making things up.

You are welcome to make the argument that advancing geriatric dementia in the president isn't a war risk — boethius

Strawman.

(But who are you talking about, Trump or Biden? Both are geriatric. Claiming only Biden is off his rocker is swallowing right wing propaganda wholesale. Not a surprise.)

What I'm pointing out is you haven't make any such argument, you've just blurted "Mahhhh! Climate Change!!" which isn't an argument. — boethius

One has done the most of any president for climate change; one says it’s a hoax. That to you amounts to “Mahh climate change!”? Are you just a child?

You could make a nuanced argument that, while we both agree Biden is a terrible candidate who shouldn't be president, he's not as bad as Trump — boethius

I do so, and more than happy to get into the weeds about each one:

So is environmental destruction. So is a judiciary that wants to take rights away. So is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and exacerbating inequality. So is trillions in student loans and making it impossible for students to cancel them. — Mikie

Your response:

Simply stating that Trump is worse on all issues of concern isn't an argument. — boethius

So pointing out that Biden is far better on climate change “isn’t an argument.” Pointing out numerous other ways Trump is worse also “isn’t an argument.” So cool: you don’t know what an argument is.

As an aside: I see a pattern among members who aren’t that bright but who want to sound bright: claim everything is a “fallacy,” and use the phrase “That isn’t an argument” — like a magic wand, just wave it over anything you don’t like, can’t understand, or can’t engage with.

Remember how this started. I’ll remind you, since you’ve clearly forgotten:

I honestly don't see any basis that a Biden administration would likely be better than a Trump administration — boethius

So my point stands: you just haven’t paid attention. A Biden administration is better and will be better than a Trump administration, on nearly every metric.

What there’s no basis for is the belief that Trump will do any better on Israel. There’s some reason to think he’d be “better” on Ukraine, in that he’ll let Putin do whatever he wants (and will thus end the war), but he’s such a geriatric dementia patient it’s impossible to predict. Even so, it doesn’t negate every other way in which he’s simply awful — and which you want to ignore. So you’re not just ignorant, but willfully so. (But let me guess: that’s “not an argument.”)

It’s not a hard choice.

President Biden has done more to address climate change than any of his predecessors. So far, voters don’t seem to care.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/biden-is-spending-1-trillion-to-fight-climate-change-voters-dont-care-21d8cb05?mod=mhp

:chin:

At least nice that the reactionary Wall Street Journal acknowledges his climate bona fides.

I posted an article about the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court and said this decision will clinch this battleground state (in which the polls are currently even/showing Trump leading) for Biden.

You respond with “that seems unlikely given the 2020 results.” But he won in 2020, so why his winning in 2024 seems unlikely given the winning results in 2020 makes no sense.

But maybe you meant something else, like given the small margins Biden won by it’s unlikely he wins this time, given the current polls, or whatever. Just lazily worded, and misses the point.

Clear enough? Cool.

I am aware. — AmadeusD

:ok: A+

But that seems unlikely given the 2020 result for Biden. — AmadeusD

He won Arizona in 2020.

Arizona Reinstates 160-Year-Old Abortion Ban

So they just clinched a Biden win in Arizona. Cool. :up:

current administration is literally completely engaged in financing, supporting, helping to execute and then just gaslighting everyone about a literal genocide and you're bold enough to say one administration is "clearly better than the other" based on a single naive example — boethius

Climate change is an existential risk. So that example is particularly relevant. But there are multiple others— that was one, yes. I’m not basing my entire judgement on that one example, though. (Some might argue that’s a kind of “fallacy” on your part.)

True, I don’t like Biden’s foreign policy either. I see no reason to believe Trump will be better about that.

If you want to twist yourself into a pretzel to continue believing that both are basically the same, or there’s no reason to believe one is “better” than the other, then you go right ahead. But you really aren’t paying attention in that case.

but not so close attention that you wonder if the covert climate change and service to the oil lobby of the democrats is actually worse than an overt climate change denial and service to the oil lobby of the Republicans — boethius

The democrats have been better on this, beyond question and on every metric. The IRA alone is point enough. I’ll gladly get into the details if you’d like. But ask yourself what Trump would do — actually, we don’t have to imagine. We know what he did while in office: took us back 10 years. Appointed an oil lobbyist as head of the EPA and withdrew from the Paris Accords.

Also, there are two choices. It’s Trump or Biden. No one likes that, but that’s the reality. Given those choices, there’s no point pretending it’s a hard decision.

Yes, supporting genocide is sickening. So is environmental destruction. So is a judiciary that wants to take rights away. So is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and exacerbating inequality. So is trillions in student loans and making it impossible for students to cancel them.

With Trump you get all of the above. With Biden, you get one: now-wavering support for Israel. Trump would not be the least pressured by or concerned with anti-genocide protests.

It’s not the same, it’s not equal, it’s not hard to see which is worse. The choice is not difficult.

The fallacy you're engaging in is one dimensional comparisons based on the two whole strawmanning my position as having said they are exactly the same. — boethius

No— I used one example to demonstrate both a very big difference and how one administration is clearly better than the other. It happens to be an excellent example, given the stakes of climate change.

My statement was that there's no reason to believe Biden is any better. — boethius

Exactly. Which is absurd and, I’ll repeat (accurately); if this is your conclusion, then you’re not paying attention. Plain and simple.

But I always love being lectured about “fallacies” in a plodding, undergraduate-level way. My suggestion is to read less philosophy— it’s not doing you any good here.

It should take any human being older than 7 about 10 minutes to determine who the worst candidate is. That you’re struggling with it isn’t my business. I’ll ignore the rest of your diatribe.

We definitely agree on this point. — boethius

Then you’re simply not paying attention. Take one example:

Biden: “Climate change is a problem we have to address.” Passes biggest climate bill in history — the IRA.

Trump: “Climate change is a Chinese hoax.”

You: “I see no difference.”

Sorry, but it’s sheer idiocy. You may not like either choice— neither do I — but let’s try to face reality. The whole “no difference between parties, they’re all corrupt” line is about 20 years out of date. Now it’s primarily used by those who know exactly nothing about either party, or their policies.

The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice.

Watched the Revenant (2015), An Officer and a Gentleman (1983), the Godfather (1972) and Anywhere But Here (1999)— in two days while under the weather.

All good. Godfather the best. The worst probably the Revenant — although Tom Hardy deserved an Oscar.

gets more independent voters
-wins 5-7 out of 13 "swing states" (and 1-2 "red states" (e.g. NC) again like 2020)

2. Dems wins US Senate (+2 seat gain)

3. Dems win US House (+20 seat gain) — 180 Proof

In terms of independents, I’m not so sure anymore. But the question is will it be enough, given the goofy electoral college?

I’m thinking he loses NC and Georgia, and probably Arizona. But he wins the blue wall — making swingy states like New Hampshire and even Nevada very important. I’d watch Florida too, although I don’t think there’s a great chance there anymore.

You’re way off with the senate. Looks like the Dems are gonna lose that chamber, unfortunately. Manchin’s seat is an easy flip, and Montana and Ohio it’s very hard to say but looks like Republican edge. Not to mention Arizona. I see republican +2 but if not then democrats 50-50 at best.

The house I agree— I think dems take it. New York being de-gerrymandered alone should do it.

(Writing this out now so you can throw it at me later if I’m wrong.)

Yes, the simplistic nickelodeon morality crew that condemns those who breach a neighbor's fence, enters his home, murders a family and sets fire to a baby in a crib. — BitconnectCarlos

That wasn’t the question.

Also, it’s very easy to condemn. Which I’ve done and any rational adult would do. The difference between you and me is that I’m capable of also condemning the murder of Palestinians, which is far greater in number.

What you do, as an educated adult with a semblance of rationality, is look at the specific situation, the context, the power dynamics, the decisions and actions, and the justifications— you then make a moral assessment.

Taking all this together, this situation is very clear. This war is an outcome of a brutal, protracted occupation by a US-backed state with overwhelming financial and military power. The history is very clear for anyone willing to look at it, and today’s actions are also very easy to understand. This is why Israel is becoming a pariah state and world opinion, including the US — where over half the country disproves of Israel’s actions — has completely turned on them.

True, it’s impossible to see if you presuppose everything Israel does is defensive. Same is done by US jingoists. — Mikie

You fit well into the latter camp. But keep up the good work of defending genocide. You’re doing god’s work I’m sure.

Riveting.

Oh look, a sanctimonious Twitter troll giving advice. Cool! :up:

There isn't one. — AmadeusD

There’s plenty, actually. For those paying attention. But please keep the substantive Tweets coming.

You could have not made your comment. But you did. — AmadeusD

Brilliant observation.

True, I like to respond to banal, sanctimonious bullshit when I see it— occasionally.