I don’t recall the media claiming it wasn’t true in the sense that these countries have serious problems. Also, it was said in an Oval Office meeting, so not private like an offhand comment at a bar or whatever.

Enjoyable reading, in the sense of being interesting and well expressed. While reading, it occurred to me that I typically don’t enjoy reading long posts on this forum.

my wife, acting as interpreter, now chooses not to translate anything controversial between us. I resented this at first when I found out, but it's probably for the best. — jamalrob

Hilarious.

How was Trump’s “Sh*thole” comment not as bad as it was portrayed in the media?

And there are all sorts of frivolous daily headlines that capture our attention and overshadow actual tragedies.

And the results are? Great economy, increased wages, more jobs you can shake a stick at, a stronger border, the end of the caliphate — NOS4A2

None of which is designed to last. It’s only designed to gain power. We are already beginning to see the signs of decline.

the US is no longer the laughing stock of the Middle East, China and Russia. — NOS4A2

True, we’re the laughing stock of the world.

I liked Obama. I voted for him twice. You can ask me what I believe instead of assuming it. No, the previous administrations pulled us out of the Great Recession by spending our money. That’s not an accomplishment to me. — NOS4A2

I appear to have assumed correctly.

You’re not impressed with increasing the national debt? Then how can you be impressed by Trump?

As an apparent libertarian your political views align with the current administration to a large degree. Trump is not truly conservative, liberal, or even libertarian for that matter. The best description of his politics might simply be ‘dictator wannabe’. He’ll do anything to gain power, basically.

Someone has to turn this ship around. It looks like Trump is the one doing it. — NOS4A2

Reduced taxes for the rich, deregulation, increased military spending, more border fencing... yeah, real groundbreaking stuff.

We’ve had enough of the eloquent lawyers speaking in glittering generalities and pontificating on our shared humanity. All they could do was talk and be politically correct. — NOS4A2

Like the typical Trump supporter, you probably believe that Obama (eloquent lawyer) caused the great recession and it was Trump who turned it around. You're probably unable to acknowledge any of Obama's accomplishments.

To be a Trump supporter is to be unconcerned with truth.

As I’ve previously stated I’m an unaffiliated voter. Do you know what that means? — NOS4A2

As an apparent libertarian your political views align with the current administration to a large degree. Trump is not truly conservative, liberal, or even libertarian for that matter. The best description of his politics might simply be ‘dictator wannabe’. He’ll do anything to gain power, basically.

Hey, he tried. What more can you ask for? — NOS4A2

He lied. We can ask for less empty promises and threats, because it diminishes the office and makes us look like idiots to the rest of the world.

Don’t worry, there’s unemployment insurance.

Then again it could help him if it is found he is innocent. — NOS4A2

Oh yeah, it’s great PR to be accused of a crime and then found innocent. :roll:

I am not an “American liberal” and have never stated otherwise. — NOS4A2

No need to state the obvious.

You mentioned deregulation and previously defended the Trump administration's dismantling of LGBT protections. That seems more like libertarianism than liberalism.

They have been conflated but I refuse the label. — NOS4A2

They’ve not been conflated in the USA, and I believe you’ve claimed to be an American. And it’s not about labeling, it’s about what you value and your moral framework. American liberalism and libertarianism are quite different in these regards. If you’ve expressed your true opinions and beliefs in this topic then you are definitely not an American liberal, but could well be libertarian.

“She [Greta Thunberg] seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!" Trump tweeted yesterday.

What a creep.

the act of switching to a brand of tea are acts performed by and chosen by us, not the advertisement. — NOS4A2

No one has claimed otherwise. Ads influence, as you have admitted yourself.

I think it goes without saying that people are more likely to purchase a product they know about than one they don’t. In that sense they [advertisements] are “influential”. — NOS4A2

Not a contradiction. You or I reading or hearing an ad is us acting upon the ad, not the other way about. — NOS4A2

You wrote that ads inform and in that sense they’re influential. The information contained within ads is received from the ads and our actions may be influenced by that information. Prior to acquiring ad information, you or I act in particular ways, like buying a specific brand of tea, for example, but subsequent to experiencing an ad we might switch to a different brand of tea. In this way, an advertisement may act upon us, may affect our behavior.

You might say that you or I could interact with an ad, if indeed the ad were interactive. Do I need to explain what interactive means?

You admitted that ads influence with the following:

I think it goes without saying that people are more likely to purchase a product they know about than one they don’t. In that sense they are “influential”. — NOS4A2

Then you claimed that, due to the first law of motion, ads cannot act upon (influence) buyers.

This is an idiotic contradiction.

“Say two companies want to sell similar consumer products. Company A hires an ad agency and spends a couple million on various forms of advertising. Company B does not advertise at all.

If company A sells more of its product then that is evidence that the advertising was influential.”
—praxis

I think it goes without saying that people are more likely to purchase a product they know about than one they don’t. In that sense they are “influential”.

But I cannot say the advertisement acted upon the one who saw it, which terms such as “influence”, “encourage”, “incite” presuppose. The advertisement cannot act upon the viewer in such a way that alters or even effects their buying choices, for the simple reason of the first law of motion. — NOS4A2

This is mind-numbingly self-contradictory. You agree with ad influence (in one sense) and then claim that, due to the first law of motion, ads cannot act upon buyers.

Yes, people who know about a product are more likely to buy it. That’s a true statement, But the ad didn’t cause them to buy it anymore than it caused another not to buy it. It’s just not true, nor can it be proven, that an ad caused the purchase of a product. — NOS4A2

Say two companies want to sell similar consumer products. Company A hires an ad agency and spends a couple million on various forms of advertising. Company B does not advertise at all.

If company A sells more of its product then that is evidence that the advertising was influential.

Any suggestions, anyone? — Pattern-chaser

Embrace your discomfort and learn to live with it.

Since it appears to be a purely emotional issue for you, you might try an emotional appeal. I wouldn’t count on success though.

You’ve made a rather big claim, that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance, but are unable to coherently explain why.

I find that when someone is unable to explain themselves it’s because they don’t fully understand what they’re talking about. Again, if this is just the way you FEEL, then say so.

I haven't responded to your post yet. I don't want to ignore it, but I don't know what to say next. I gave you my explanation. It's clear you don't find it convincing. What else is there to say? — T Clark

It appears that you also don’t find your explanation convincing, being that you don’t know what to say in response to a counter-view of it.

I don’t know if you’re religious, but in any case, I sense that you FEEL some degree of reverence for religion in general (if not particular), and that’s why you’re unable to reason out your proposal that religious beliefs should be given “special respect” and tolerance, and not afford the same respect and tolerance to non-religious beliefs.

Is that about right?

I don't believe the first amendment says anything about special respect and tolerance for religious believers and their beliefs over non-believers and their beliefs
— praxis

Significant the 'non-belief' is regarded as a form of belief. I think that is the underlying issue in many of these debates. The reason being, that unbelief or believing there is no god, is not the same as simply 'having no belief'. For those with no beliefs, there would be nothing to discuss. — Wayfarer

There would be nothing to discuss if these people with no beliefs didn’t care that people with religious beliefs enjoyed a ‘special respect’ and tolerance not afforded to them. I imagine such people would be curious about the reasoning or justification behind their second class status.

Do you withdraw the suggestion?
— praxis

No. — T Clark

I don't believe the first amendment says anything about special respect and tolerance for religious believers and their beliefs over non-believers and their beliefs, indeed, that would seem to be against the principle of the amendment, to favor one group over another.

What is your reasoning???

Can you offer a reason or reasons why?
— praxis

Here's what I wrote previously:

Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.

Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal.
— T Clark — T Clark

I can't seem to read between the lines very well today and can't find a reason or reasons why religious belief deserves special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs in what you previously wrote.

Do you withdraw the suggestion?

I meant to say that religious belief deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs. — T Clark

Can you offer a reason or reasons why?

He would surely adopt the public/private view approach of PR politics, where every speech, every public appearance, every robotic delivery is formulated to placate and flatter the masses rather than engage with them. — NOS4A2

This is true for Trump except that it’s designed specifically for his base rather than ‘the masses’ in general.

You believe the president of the US is like a manager, and the whitehouse like a restaurant? — NOS4A2

Exactly, and it currently serves crappy unhealthy fast food...

A high turnover rate indicates incompetence in management. Perhaps you can make an argument that a high turnover rate is somehow beneficial and reflects competency?

That’s right. You couldn’t do it. We could put 10 of you guys up there and you’d melt trying to do Trumps job. All you guys can do is pretend you’re morally superior, but not actually prove it. — NOS4A2

Well, no president has ever gone through four National Security Advisors within three years. Given the stakes involved, that degree of incompetence would be hard to match, I must admit.

This implies that you believe minorities are unfortunate, so it appears that you despise support for the unfortunate. What kind of person are you?

I’d love to see one of the them, or one of his internet critics, try doing his job and at his pace. — NOS4A2

Four National Security Advisors in three years is good reality TV, I guess, but it's shit management.

despise the moronic support of minorities simply because they are minorities — Drazjan

Spoken just like someone who’s never been a minority.

Bumbling narcissist who is incapable of admitting any faults.

He seems to be getting worse lately. Perhaps dementia, or because he’s surrounded himself in Yes Men and we’re seeing the resulting groupthink fumbles.

Maybe the troll isn’t so much “poisoning the well” as he is “corrupting the youth” with his lies and heresies. — NOS4A2

You admit to lying?

I've read a lot of your posts and I haven't seen anything heretical. What do you think is heretical?

A member of a philosophy forum who has a pattern of making wild claims and not supporting such claim should be banned, in my opinion.
— praxis

The moderators have been known to ban someone for repeated frivolous or low-quality threads. To me, that doesn't seem like a solution that should be used very often. — T Clark

As often as needed.

Philosophy is pretty much worthless if you don't value truth, right?

A member of a philosophy forum who has a pattern of making wild claims and not supporting such claim should be banned, in my opinion.

So if you had a kid who took after you and wasn’t bright, would you prefer that teachers call him stupid or ‘academically challenged’?

Here’s a link to an article that I read back when the Trumpian nightmare began:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump

Until the late 1980s, 'political correctness' was used exclusively within the left, and almost always ironically

there are no such rules in any debate format — NOS4A2

What rules are you referring to exactly?

Go to the top of your web browser and in the address bar copy and paste: “rules of acceptable debate,” then hit return. You will then be presented with a list of resources. I’m afraid it’s up to you to make use of it.