You could write if-then facts that are brute-facts, as I myself have said.

Then your personal usage of Skepticism is no longer a rejection of brute-facts, since you acknowledged--in your bold quote below--your personal use of skepticism is about an endless stream of IF statements that must include many brute facts

Really Michael, your philosophy is simply an endless stream of IF statements, which are debatable, followed by even more debatable THEN statements.
— Michael Ossipoff

Good. You've caught on to the fact that Skepticism is about hypothetical "if-then" s. Congratulations.

So, since your personal usage of "Skepticism" no longer rejects all brute-facts, you really should write a hard clear definition of your personal usage of the word.

And since I'm the one actually making my arguments, and you're the one making personal attacks, the only one who has descended to his full troll-ness is you.

I've also quoted dictionary definitions of skepticism, the common noun.

Except that quoting has been useless, since your personal usage of the word has a different meaning.

I've justified Skepticism as the name of my metaphysics, by the fact that complete rejection and avoidance of assumptions is skeptical.

Except your inclusion of all "if-then" statements counters thins since many "if-then" statements can be assumptions or brute-facts. So, you really need to make that hard, clear definition, and a better one than that "complete rejection."

If you have a specific objection to, or question about, Skepticism, feel free to say what it is.

I just made it in my post above yours, and you haven't addressed that rejection since you refuse to make a hard, clear definition of your personal use of "skepticism."

You just made Skepticism the uber-concept that can "simulate every metaphysics." That gives it all meaning and no meaning.
— Thanatos Sand

I'm not quite sure what that means.

You should know exactly what it means since you, yourself, said it in the bold quote below:

But of course every metaphysics that is contrived to somehow, in its own elaborate way, explain this physical world, can be simulated by Skepticism.

If people want to know what your personal use of the term Skepticism means, I suggest you write out a hard, clear definition of it.

I've defined, at great length and in great detail, the metaphysics that I call Skepticism.

Yes, and that great length has confused things. Again, nobody will know what you mean until you give a hard, clear definition of your personal use of the word "skepticism." If you know what you're talking about, you should be able to do so.

You just made Skepticism the uber-concept that can "simulate every metaphysics." That gives it all meaning and no meaning.

If people want to know what your personal use of the term Skepticism means, I suggest you write out a hard, clear definition of it.

Uh, oh. Augustino's having himself a meltdown.

Thanks for proving me right again by throwing around childish insults like "cuckoo" and "coward"...especially since they describe you perfectly

And calling Mongrel's comments "stupid" and saying her judgement is pathetic is also insulting. The fact you don't know that means you are the last person who should be criticizing someone else's posts.

So, the only pathetic one is you. And only someone who actually has a hole, like you, would think someone else has one. So, you must really have a lovely one. So, go get some professional help with that clear anger and delusion problem of yours. I'm pulling for you....:)

TheMadFool
If this is the case then the studies you mention could be biased because they didn't weigh in this crucial factor

The studies aren't biased. They're done by sociologists and criminologists who did weigh in those, and other, crucial factors.

The studies aren't biased.
— Thanatos Sand

Can you give me a link

Marc Mayer wasnt one of the main scholars in the study. Nice cherry-picking, though
— Thanatos Sand

:) Sorry. Anyway, the data clumps ALL murders together. That means it doesn't distinguish murders committed under ''ordinary'' circumstances and those done in extremis (crimes of passion and psychopathy). As I said in my posts, this distinction is necessary in determining the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Please read below.

Sorry, you never specified this at all. You asked for a link that backed my claim that the death penalty wasn't a deterrent, and I gave you one. So, now you're just changing the goalposts to fit your desired end. And I don't engage with people who do that. So, we're done.

So, you have never read it. You're a pretty sad liar.

The proof is in the article for everyone to read and see how ridiculous, and dishonest, you've been.

And since you lied, and have been ridiculously wrong, I'm done reading your posts on this.

Marc Mayer wasnt one of the main scholars in the study. Nice cherry-picking, though.

One who has watched those interrogations soon finds out that there were no laws broken.

No, one doesnt', only someone who was watching poorly like yourself. Greenwald's article--and Greenwald is immensely more informed than you on the matter--shows laws were clearly broken.

Warren exposed how the banks oversaw themselves basically, and by doing so wrote the (de)regulations in ways that they could get away with doing what they did.

Warren's interrogation didn't show they didn't break any laws. And Greenwald shows they did.

I read the article. It reeks of rhetoric

You're clearly lying and did not read the article in 25 minutes. And "reeks of rhetoric" is a nonsensical statement made by people who cannot address the main arguments. Of course you don't know those arguments, since you didn't read the article and couldn't name them if you tried. To prove I'm wrong, name those 5 main arguments. We both know you can't...:)

Her endorsement of Clinton came after the primaries were all but over...

No, they were not over, and that's no excuse for her not endorsing Sanders earlier if she actually cared about fighting the Banks corruption.

Here's that article again, the one you clearly never read. The one that shows you're completely wrong by an author who knows way more on the subject than you do:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

I obviously have and I saw it was mostly bluster with no real penalties at all. The fact she chose to endorse Hillary Clinton--the banks good buddy--over Bernie Sanders--the banks biggest "real" critic--says everything you need to know about her commitment to fighting the banks.

Again, the article I provided by Greenwald/Guardian shows very clearly that Obama could have and should have prosecuted the banks...and why he shamefully didn't

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

Get back to me when you actually read it instead of just continuing to defend the banks

Sorry, Elizabeth Warren, for all her bluster has been mostly a life-long Republican who still has bank and corporate connections and supports the Bank-loving members of the Democrats. The Greenwald/Guardian article is much more trustworthy:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

No, you didn't address what I said at all. So, it is your understanding of the ACA is completely wrong.

And there is still a GOP plan to fight ACA. So, this conversation is pointless and over since you don't understand what the ACA is and how bad it is, and you failed to address Single Payer, the best option.

So, we're done and I won't be reading any more of your posts.

We can look at available footage of Trump talking about things at different times and clearly note self-contradiction. For instance, taking a look at how he has talked about James Comey in the past year show a remarkable amount of change in what Trump believes about Comey. That kind of talk has been accepted in American politics. It has become the norm. It is expected, none-the-less, as any number of common jokes about politicians show.

This has been going on in America, and the rest of the world, for centuries.

The problem, of course, is that he cannot believe all of those things that he has said, for some are mutually exclusive. That is, some of the things negate others and vice-versa. They cannot all be true. Thus, knowing that... they cannot all be believed by the same person at the same time. The only way Trump could have believed all of the different things that he said about Comey is if Trump's beliefs change on a whim. Either he is deliberately misrepresenting his own thought/belief, or he is very irrational. Calling him on it seems futile, because it's considered normal politician behaviour. As such, one go to defense will point to other politicians doing the same thing(saying whatever is politically convenient at the time).

The actual problem is Trump is a reactionary conservative whose policies threaten our environment, our national health care, and our education system. But for some reason people would rather waste time erroneously bemoaning a "post-Trump" world or obsess on unfounded conspiracy theories.

am leaning more and more towards the idea that the acceptance of that sort of behaviour comes as a direct result of people mistakenly thinking/believing that when a politician lies, little to nothing can be done about it, as a result of thinking that it cannot be proven. I mean, there are any number of different defenses for what seems to be clear cut cases of lying to the public. The go to defense, however, seems to rely upon a mistaken notion of what counts as the burden of proof in such matters... proving another's intent.]

It's more like people know presidents have always lied and they know there is little, if anything, they can do about it.

I remember when the discourse regarding Clinton's e-mails began using that standard.

Ultimately, it could not be proven that she intentionally destroyed evidence. There was no doubt that she destroyed certain devices. However, her claim was that she destroyed them as a matter of privacy protection, and that nothing destroyed was relevant to the investigation. Innocent until proven guilty. She and her attorneys was/were her own judge regarding which e-mails were germane. To prove that she intended to destroy evidence, the prosecution would have to have shown that there was something relevant on those devices.

Hillary straight up lied to Comey about destroying evidence. And since the e-mails showed evidence she was doing arm sales at State to the same countries she was taking money from at her Clinton Foundation--whose Qatarian donors gave Bill Clinton a 1 mil birthday present--she had every reason to want to destroy them beyond just "privacy." If one has to absolutely prove one is lying to know they are lying, we are in deep trouble.

Does that look bad? Surely. Was it illegal? Nope. The laws governing her actions weren't broken.

It looks bad because she did risk security to keep her interrelated State/Clinton foundation activities hidden from others after Obama told her she needed to stop doing Foundation work at state. That looks really bad, and something doesn't have to be illegal to be bad, like when she sold uranium to Putin for 30 mil through her foundation.

A look at the '08 financial meltdown also clearly shows that no laws were broken.

That's a lie you haven't backed up at all. Many have shown how they broke laws, but the Banks were Obama's biggest donors and he let them off the hook, costing millions of Americans justice and civil suit recovery. Glenn Greenwald well details that here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

All of these things and more have helped lead to the common belief that truth doesn't matter...

No, they haven't, and you haven't backed up that lie at all.

Sand wrote:

I never said you insulted me, I said you tried to but I wasnt' insulted...

Now you're lying Sand. You didn't say that until much later in an edit that happened long after this talk about insulting had already begun. I know what you originally said when I asked you...

No, you're lying now, Creat, since what you said happened never happened.

I wrote:

I do not think that what I said insulted you Sand...

Am I wrong?

You answered originally...

Yes, you're very wrong.

That was the original complete reply, in it's entirety...

I cannot be wrong in thinking that you were not insulted unless you were. Since then, you've gone back and changed your answer several times. The latest answer negates and/or conflicts with the first...

That was incoherent nonsense, and I've been very consistent. .

I cannot be wrong in thinking that you were not insulted unless you were. Since then, you've gone back and changed your answer several times. The latest answer negates and/or conflicts with the first...

Yes, you're very wrong, you tried to insult me, but I wasn't insulted.

But if you didn't insult me, I certainly didn't insult you. So, I'm good with either...:)

Not only are you wrong, but your obsession with this is a bit creepy. So, I will leave you to obsess on your own and will only read posts about the thread subject.

Be well.

Sorry, that's just rates. That says nothing about increasing deductible or refusing to cover the pre-existing condition. And that current law will change with the GOP plan. Now address Medicare-For-All or the discussion is pointless.

And speaking of insults, isn't it funny, Augustino, that I can find you insulting someone:

"Anyway, we're done. Life's too short for me to spend much time talking to a sexist jerk.
— Mongrel
Just because I find your comments in this thread stupid and you're a woman doesn't make me a sexist, nor a jerk. You just don't know what you're talking about with regards to Kierkegaard (or Christian mysticism for that matter). Your judgement is so dominated by your 1960s atheistic/humanistic/leftist ideology that you can't even see beyond your own nose. It's pathetic. Everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a sexist."

So why are you doing it my man? Why feel the need to insult strangers just because they disagree with you or insult you?

LOL. Sorry, not playing someone else's stupid game isn't cowardice. It's wisdom.

And thanks for further confirming you cant' show anywhere where I insulted anyone...:)

What the hell are you talking about?

Your'e trying to say what my intent was, and you have no idea what my intent was.

And I never said you insulted me, I said you tried to but I wasnt' insulted, and that doesn't mean I was trying to insult you.

How can you not process that?

Sorry, you guys have no idea what my intent was. And you were clearly trying to insult me, even Augustino admitted that. Thanks for even more support.

LOL. Sorry, that conversation doesn't show one insult. Thanks for making my point for me. And calling someone a racist when they say racist things, as you did, isn't insulting someone. It's telling the truth.

Then you disagree with Augustino that I insulted you. Thanks for the support.

And it was very sincere...:)

Oh, So, what I wrote did insult you?

And you read my post poorly, I made it clear I wasn't insulted.

I do not think that what I said insulted you Sand...

Am I wrong?

Yes, you're very wrong, you tried to insult me, but I wasn't insulted.

But if you didn't insult me, I certainly didn't insult you. So, I'm good with either...:)

Other folk show a tendency towards ad homs... regardless of whether or not they are blatantly insulting another.

Yep, and that was you, too. You know yourself too well.

Yep, and that was you, Creativesoul. Not much one can do about that...:)

So, you admit your bias. Good. I haven't insulted anyone until then. But I've seen you insult people a lot. So, why feel the need to insult strangers just because they disagree with or insult you? :s

I'm not the one who insulted first; Creative Soul was. The fact you didn't notice that shows how biased, and worthless, your opinion is on the matter.

Have a good day. I won't be reading any more of your posts on this thread.

They can't exclude based on preexisting condition nor vary the rates based upon preexisting condition.

They absolutely can vary the rates, areas of coverage and deductible based on preexisting condition and they do.

The rates were to be kept under control in theory by mandating everyone buy insurance, including those with no preexisting condition.

The rates were not to be kept under control and weren't as the insurance companies never planned to not raise them and they did. And they certainly can and will under the GOP plan.

The system has failed because many refuse to purchase insurance despite the mandate and because of spiraling health care costs.

No, the system has failed because it's a bad, expensive system that still leaves many Americans uncovered. Medicare-for-All will fix that. Since you want all Americans covered, you must want that.

The only one who is making himself look bad is you, both with your stupidity and your pathetic meltdown.

And the only thing I confirmed was that stupidity, and now you're throwing a tantrum like a spanked child. So, the one who needs to sit down and shut the fuck up is you...:)

Do the American people elect candidates based upon what the candidates themselves think/believe, or do they elect the candidates who have the best speech writers?

You tell us, and tell us why it is relevant to the discussion.

So if we put this into the appropriate context, the term post-truth began being bandied about during and especially right after a leader was elected despite his clear disregard for truth. This could only happen in a 'democratically' elected government if choosing him was considered the best thing to do, given the available choices.

You're not putting it into the appropriate context, since most of Trump's voters--and there were a lot of them--believed Trump would "put America First" and bring back jobs and crack down on immigration (which he did do). So, Trump's election was not an affirmation of a new "Post-Truth" world.

But how could it ever have been that way to begin with?

Nobody said it was the way you said It was to begin with because the way you said it is above is not the way it is. However, many people knew Bush lied about WMDs and still voted him in for a second term.

Given the central role that truth plays in all thinking, how could people harbor so much distrust in government, that they believed someone like Trump was the best option? They would have to believe that they could trust him to correct what they wanted fixed.

Did you really ask how people could harbor so much trust in government when the government has lied to us about Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, the NSA unconstitutionally monitoring our phones, and the government's close ties with the banks they let screw over millions of Americans? Have you even been living in America? If Americans didn't distrust our government, they'd be naïve fools.

And voting for Trump because voters distrusted the government just shows they picked one out of two terrible options. Hillary sucked, too. It certainly doesn't point to the existence of a "Post-Truth world."

They would have to believe that they could trust him to correct what they wanted fixed.

Not necessarily, many also voted for him because they couldn't stand Hillary Clinton who's stupid "deplorables" comment made them feel she wouldn't be there for them. And everyone picks a president because they hope they'll fix things. That also doesn't point to a "Post-Truth world"

If a very large swathe of people firmly believe that government itself is the problem, and that fixing the problem requires replacing everyone in government, then electing an 'outsider' with the power to do that seems to be necessary. That makes it easier to elect someone whose never been a politician.

Your going off the rails here. Trumpys may be a bit clueless, but none of them wanted or event thought they could have everyone replaced. And Sanders was an outsider, and the best candidate, and many smart people supported him. Outsiders can be good things--Bobby Kennedy was an outsider.

Here's the thing though...

What if that kind of thinking amounts to a misdiagnosis of the problem?

Here's the thing, though...

Nobody thinks that way.

I mean, the current situation involves an overwhelming amount of distrust in elected and/or government officials(regardless of whether or not that is well-grounded).

Our situation the last 60 years before the current situation involved an overwhelming amount of distrust in elected and/or government officials.

You seem to forget:

The Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra, Clinton's wagging his finger at America and saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman," Bush and the CIA's lies about WMDs leading to the nightmarish Iraq War, and Obama lying to us about the NSA unconstitutionally monitoring our phones.

The collective conscience has accepted insincerity as the norm, but it hasn't accepted any and all forms thereof. It is certainly the case that some instances of dishonesty are still widely considered unacceptable...

This has also been the case long before Trump.

Clearly so.

And yet others seem to argue from the idea that all lies are equal.

I haven't seen a single post saying all lies are equal. You need to go find one if you want to back up that dubious claim

It's absolutely not illegal to raise the rates for pre-existing conditions and not to cover those pre-existing conditions in the policy. And it certainly is not illegal to increase the deductible for that pre-existing condition to a ridiculous number, rendering health care unaffordable anyway.

I never said the ACA was unaffordable for all, but it will certainly be better than the GOP plan that just wants to really screw the Poor. But you and I know Single Payer/Medicare-for-All is the best approach anyway, since it will cover everybody and make it affordable for all. I'm glad we can admit that.

That didn't show what you think has long been hidden and is no longer concealed in the supposed "Post-Truth world." ....but I guess we can move on.

No, they are the same because you say what has long been hidden is no longer concealed.

You need to clarify what has long been hidden and is no longer concealed if you are going to make your case. You haven't done so yet.

In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer hidden. The world after the unveiling would be the post truth world...

Now you're saying something different. You're saying the world before the Post-Truth world, the Truth world, hid something. And after that something was revealed, we'd have the Post-Truth world.

Now that is very odd. You're saying the world before the Post-Truth world, the Truth world, was the deceptive one, and when we had more Truth and saw what was hidden, we'd have the Post-Truth world. So, you're saying there is more Truth in the Post-Truth world than in the Truth world. That doesn't make much sense now, does it?

By the way, what exactly was being concealed and what was revealed?

I wrote:

In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer... concealed.

Sand replied:

So, you're saying Truth is no longer concealed in a theoretical "Post-Truth" world. That doesn't make much sense.

That's not what I wrote, nor does it follow from what I wrote.

If you look at your passages closely, you'll see it is what you wrote, if not word for word.

In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer... concealed.

So, you're saying Truth is no longer concealed in a theoretical "Post-Truth" world. That doesn't make much sense.

When reality imposes itself upon one in such a way that s/he must either change their belief about reality and/or devalue the role that reality has in determining what it makes sense to believe, the ground of one's belief system becomes paramount.

This isn't happening now.

If one's view of others is guided by a with us or against us principle, it can be very problematic. I mean that can pave the way to an overwhelmingly powerful criterion built upon confirmation bias alone.

This dynamic is neither dominant now, nor is it new. In fact, it was much worse during the post-9/11 years when you were either "with us or with the terrorists." Suddenly even some "leftists' were backing the predominantly unconstitutional Patriot Act and the horrid Iraq War.

Hence... currently in the US, we have begun to see the notion of 'Deep State' being used in precisely this manner...

We're seeing "deep state" used because the deep state exists, has made terrible costly lies to Americans before, and are greatly involved in this pathetic "investigation" of a Russian election tampering conspiracy that has produced nil in almost a year. At first Hillary Clinton and others spread the lie that 17 agencies (as if the Coast Guard matters) believed in this conspiracy theory. But now we know it's only 3--the prime 3 of the Deep State: The CIA, FBI, and NSA who are no more trustworthy on their word than Donald Trump Jr.

Here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/30/theres-still-no-evidence-that-executions-deter-criminals/?utm_term=.1b792e10f3cf

If this is the case then the studies you mention could be biased because they didn't weigh in this crucial factor

The studies aren't biased. They're done by sociologists and criminologists who did weigh in those, and other, crucial factors.