If you weigh up the profound suffering caused by positions held by people like NOS and then find that your concern inclines to some anonymous moron on the internet, then you need to revaluate your priorities. — StreetlightX

:100:

I offer the following for my left wing liberal brethren. What should have happened:

All former slave-owning real and personal property turned over to former slaves. As to former slave-owning families (and any true believers): The women and old men shipped off to reservations thousands of miles from home to become dependent wards of the state; All children sent to the Carlisle Bigot School in Pennsylvania to be deprogrammed from white supremacy; All men placed into indentured servitude of former slaves until such time as contrition was achieved.

Had this been done, many of the problems we face today would not exist (enemy flags, statues, systemic racism, riots, etc), and integration would be much further along.

It would also have demonstrated the appropriate honor and respect due to all American troops who fought and died for our country. This has not happened. It would also have cemented the honor of our heritage of killing enemy confederates, racists, and the champions of slavery. Reparations paid in blood then, instead of talk about money today. We have spit on our troops, and dishonored our own heritage.

The reasons this did not happen include the understandable weariness of war, and a desire to move along; let bygones be bygones, let it go, forget the past. However, white privilege explains a lot of it. Many a northern abolitionist would have balked at the ideas above. “Equal, yeah, but not *that* equal! Let ol' Billy Bob and Cletus have their land back. It'll work out.” In other words, many of the so-called enlightened ones are really just racists too.

Anyway, for all the touchy-feely liberal types who get all magnanimous and want to make nice after kicking an enemy in the rear, let history be a lesson to you. Future generations will have to suffer due to our failure to destroy the enemy’s will to fight. Sherman was on the right track but we didn't finish the job. Now we have . . . well, . . . what we have.

Can you imagine doing to WWII troops what we are doing to Civil War troops? Every time we let fascist racists raise their fking heads out from under the fridge, and give them oxygen on T.V., that is what we are doing. And for my Republican friends, every time you abide the belief that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", you just got in bed with evil. You can't expect real Americans to entertain what might be your legitimate social or economic conservative ideas when you let racist fascist carry your political water for you. You best dump trump or you will lose your party for having lost your way. You wouldn't know a real leader (Cheney?) if it jumped up and slapped you in the face.

End rant.

Well, the point of Fallacy man's highly informative albeit short tale is simply to make the reader cognizant of what fallacies truly are - weaknesses in the argument and doesn't/can't help in determinimg the falsehood of the conclusion. — TheMadFool

I got that, but my Fallacy Man is a super hero and would not be taken down by a mere boy. My Fallacy Man continues on the road of correction! :starstruck: :nerd: :strong:

I should have thought of that.... silly me. Fortunately, you and your intelligence are here to save me from my stupidity. — Daniel

The answer to each question you asked was well within your grasp, had you just thought about it and not asked. But I made the mistake of perceiving sincere curiosity and so I played along. Your sarcasm is well taken. I should have held my counsel. I'll try to be better.

It's also just simply the case that ignoring his comments in this thread is the only thing that can make it so that we just don't have to pay attention to them anymore. — thewonder

Agreed. Self-discipline.

The mistake of thinking/inferring that the conclusion of an argument is false because it contains a fallacy. — TheMadFool

It's a mistake to believe that noting a fallacy concludes the argument. Fallacy man swoops in, notes the fallacy, one of the boys says "fallacy fallacy" and fallacy man responds "I didn't say your fallacy should stop the argument. By all means, continue. And I shall continue to moderate in case you screw up a third time. Now carry on."

How are you able to tell someone's patience runs out quicker than someone else's? — Daniel

Go to a bar, start annoying everyone, and you'll find out.

I do genuinely feel kind of bad for them. — thewonder

The left has an honorable habit of being magnanimous. But when thou striketh the king, strike not to wound. We struck Trump and it would be a horrible mistake to grant him any mercy. His ilk should be shown none, until such time as there is evidenced contrition. I personally don't have the strength to maintain much more than my vote or some words on the internet, and leave it to the younger generation. But I warn them: The right would kill you if they could get away with it. That is why, when normally it might be long range planning to maintain the filibuster and placate middle-of-the-road Democrats (Manchin, et al), the gloves are off, it's too late, this is the last chance we will ever have the House, Senate and White House. Playing nice now will result in a mid-term shellacking of the left. Time to go all in or we'll get dummy again in 2024 and the it will be civil war.

If James Riley's patience is different from tim wood's patience and neither occupies a space, how do you distinguish James Riley's patience from tim wood's patience? — Daniel

One runs out quicker than the other. You just have to wait and see.

Could you give examples of things that have a limit and do not occupy a space — Daniel

My patience.

:100: I'm slowly starting to get the lay of the land. :smile:

:victory:

Where we haven't advanced, we're the same as your average well educated Athenian. — Manuel

I don't know. I'm not an authority on the average well educated Antenian, but I've a strong suspicion they were smarter than most Americans.

I’d love to see this common sense in action, but I have asked for proof of Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread for years now with nothing to show for it, so I don’t expect much. — NOS4A2

You used common sense when you suspected the dismissal was done begrudgingly. I agree. Nevertheless, our common sense does not rise to the level of a principle we both hold.

This is probably a digression, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a criminal burden and an extremely high one at that. The civil standard is usually "a preponderance of the evidence." Any way, the wheels of "justice" turn slow. Some times it takes years. We all know (common sense) Trump is a dishonorable coward and a liar. But applying civil or criminal standards to that is another thing. Had Obama done one smidgeon of the things Trump did, the right would have their panties in a knot, their hair on fire, and they'd be dancing around and screaming themselves horse.

We were promised the next Hitler, nuclear war, economic collapse, race wars, fascism, the Kremlin, and a litany of other bogeymen, none of which materialized. — NOS4A2

Thanks to the left.

I can only imagine how the world would be today had those tasked with informing us warned us about real threats. — NOS4A2

You mean like Faux News and Limbaugh?

Now we find ourselves under the yoke of every leader and bureaucrat but Donald Trump. — NOS4A2

Yeah, you're all yoked up. LOL!

If you can't let things go, you will end up being very unhappy (and that won't help anybody). — synthesis

If you can't answer questions, or admit when you are wrong, you might think you are happy (I'm sure Trump does), but it won't help yourself or anybody.

So, did you, or did you not say I said something I did not say? I may have said it. Hell, if I cared enough to think about it, I might have even agreed with the sentiment. But that is not the point. If you are a liar, misquoting people, then, like the RQP that fails to admit Trump lost and is a loser and a sore loser at that, it' would be futile for me to engage on the merits of any issue.

Can't go wrong with the dialogues. ;) — Manuel

I'm not into little boys, but I could really walk around a Mediterranean climate in robes all day, talking with smart people. When I finally started to see what was happening, I was not only impressed with the methods, and the exchanges, and the subject matter, but I had to sit back and wonder about how long ago that was, and how we haven't advanced all that much.

I know individuals, and individual segments of society, then and now, from different societies, and geographies, are just as impressive. But I would have hoped that by now our dumbest people would be as smart as Plato, et al. Hell, it's been about 2,500 years! No joy.

I read James back in the early 80s. By Russel, is that Bertrand? I may have run by him too. I have not tackled Schopenhauer yet. I've seen him mentioned a lot, here on this board. Might have to give him a look if he won't make me sleep. LOL!

The only ones that really kept me awake was the S Dialogues. But I pound down non-philosophical classics and enjoy those.

Begrudgingly, they did. — NOS4A2

The burden of proof that it was "begrudgingly" would be upon you. And, since you believe a presumption of innocence, I know you didn't mean "begrudgingly", right?

I also think the principle of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt need not apply only to those concerned with law, but also to those who believe in justice, human rights and common sense. — NOS4A2

Maybe it should, but I think certain segments of society see it as a matter of who's ox is being gored. The same guy who wants Trump to get the benefit of the doubt as a matter of principle, will not give that same benefit to those who dropped the investigation.

You either believe in it or you don’t. — NOS4A2

One can believe in principles as a matter of principle, but not let principles cloud common sense. That's one reason we have juries.

Apologies for the ramble, Jack, just want to let you know that quality displaces quantity soon enough with maturity like a finer aged vintage from an old dusty bottle. — 180 Proof

I wish I had what it took to read like that. It takes an appreciation for time (there is more of it than we think), and an ability to ignore, or get away from distraction. It takes the ass-opposite of mania. I've got the mania down pat.

After a decade or more of having Hegel (The Essential Writings, Harper Torchbooks 1974) put me to sleep at night, I'm still only a 1/4 way in and keep restarting it. You may disagree, but I somehow get the feeling he's got something there. Now I've got the book you recommended (Black Holes, Information and the String Theory Revolution, A Holographic Universe) and I'm trying to plow through that and stay awake.

Sometimes I pray that simply reading something, whether I get it or not, will work it's magic in the back of the old brain pan somewhere, like osmosis or some shit. Like someday the mere fact that I read it will be the yeast in the oven and it will all make some bread some day some how. LOL! That way I keep reading. But I know that's not the way it works or I'd have ten PhDs.

Anyway, good on ya, mate.

Also we're naturally endowed with the capacity of reason and can override baser instincts and condition ourselves in particular ways. — praxis

I'm working on that. :grin:

Interdependence as a rationalization for behavior is rather unusual, probably because it's far too abstract an idea to be popularly adopted. There's no natural intuition to step back and look at the bigger picture, even though that could lead to a more fulfilling and sustainable outcome. So yeah, certainly couldn't rest with that alone. — praxis

I agree there is no natural intuition to step back and look at the bigger picture. I don't think it's natural for people (or any animal) to look at the big picture. However, I think interdependence has always been seen close up, and that is the reason we are here today. I think there is a natural intuition to step forward and find interdependence as a rationalization for behavior. It used to include our fellow travelers, and not just human beings.

I can’t think of any reason we’d assume the opposite, but here we are. — NOS4A2

What do you mean "here we are"? Didn't they drop the charges?

The presumption of innocence applies to a finder of fact (jury, or judge in a bench trial), not to the public. You know he's guilty as f and so does everyone, including him.

That’s more a presumption of guilt than innocence, and there are reasons we avoid such tyranny in free society. — NOS4A2

Uh, no. It's a presumption of innocence. That's why we let them go. Remind the right next time someone on the left is accused of something, or walks because of a failure of proof.

At one time someone asked another: "If we lead a man to knowledge can we make him think?" Philosophy proved that you can't fix stupid. And it proves that on a daily, minutely basis.

It looks like the case against Trump’s supposed hush-money payments was dropped. — NOS4A2

That's how the rich get away with crime: They have minions do their dirty work for them. They can then pretend they didn't know. Notice it was dropped because they couldn't prove Trump knew, not because it didn't happen. So, all you have to do is say "Be a shame if anything happened to Loui."

This is an example of how you have difficulties moving on, but I will humor you. — synthesis

Are you saying I said that, or not? If I said it, fine. Show me where I said it. If not, then why should I "move on"? Are you saying I should ignore a lie.

Would you have me move on from an insurrectionist, or any other wrong-doer and just pretend it didn't happen? Can you distinguish between past acts and ongoing acts?

Are you saying I should sit down and discuss the merits of "truth" with Joe Goebbels? Day Care with Jefferson Davis? Making the trains run on time with Mussolini? Military efficiency with Hitler? Sorry, but I won't do that. They and their followers must, at the very least, confess their sins, show contrition and make amends. If the GQP wants to save itself, it must follow leaders like Cheney and Romney, and punish leaders like Trump, Desantis, et al. Until then, don't be surprised if they don't get a seat at the table with the adults and the reasonable people, the debaters and the seekers of truth.

My kind? :) Enough with the bullshit. Do you want to debate or not? — synthesis

Yes, your kind.

I don't want to debate with an unreasonable person. I'm vetting the sincerity of your curiosity. Again, can you show me where I said what you quoted me as saying? I'm not saying I didn't say it, but my limited search skills of page 6 & 7 did not turn it up.

↪James Riley You think you know me? You're incapable of knowing yourself!

Debate me and I'll show you why.[/quote]

Side bar. Not saying I didn't say it, but can you cite me to where I said that?

Debate me and I'll show you why. — synthesis

You keep raising the ante. Now you must go forth among your kind and preach, like a disciple, the error of the ways of Trump and his spawn.

Of course Trump lost. So what? — synthesis

I've already explained "so what." But since you have no idea what I'm talking about, I'll take another stab at it:

It's important the reasonable people who admit he lost, is a loser, and is a sore loser (Cheney, Romney, etc.), be distinguished from the stupid people who think he won, is a winner and a great winner. The former might be able to be reasoned with. The latter are enemies of the United States. We should confirm their worst Q suspicions of us, round them up, put them on trains, and send them to re-education camps to learn the exalted ways of communism. LOL!

Seriously though: Even Trump may reasonably know he lost, and is a loser. What he is calling being a "victim" of the left (and what all reasonable people call being a sore loser) may be a calculated way to drum up money and base support for 2024, but that is what renders him unworthy of reasonable debate. He is sewing the seeds of an unnecessary civil war. That makes him and his apologists enemies of the United States, ala Jefferson Davis.

I have no idea what you are talking about. — synthesis

I know.

Until you confess your sins to the public, no reasonable person would teach you how wrong you are on the merits. Your failure to confess has brought this on you. Jefferson Davis may or may not support Day Care, but I wouldn't talk to him about it until he admitted that slavery and racism is an abomination and that he was patently wrong for having aided and abetted it.

You've got to get over the Trump thing and move on. Look how lame Hillary has been with her blathering about how Trump stole the election from her and he was an illegitimate president.

The biggest mistake people make in their lives is in not being able to leave the past in the past. It's over, time to move forward. — synthesis

The mistake in your reasoning has already been dealt with. It is not the left that can't get over it. It's the right. Hell, they're still whining about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Obama. Confess and you will feel better and we can then move on to the debate of the substantive issues.

I do not consider myself a political person but I will debate the conservative point of view with you because I believe the Left is incredibly mis-guided.

I'll start. Government is necessary but you must limit government to the smallest size possible. The reasons are multiple...gross economic inefficiencies and the direct relationship between size and corruption levels within government, to name a couple. — synthesis

Again, until you admit Trump lost, is a loser, and a sore loser, we can't debate the real issues. I've already spanked you, un-rebutted, on the issues regarding cost externalization, etc. It is not the left that can't get over it. Ask the Arizona Republican Party, Desantis, and all the people who continue to insist he did not lose, is not a loser, and is not a sore loser. The reason this is so important, and not merely some petulant winner refusing to be magnanimous in victory, is because an assault was laid on the United States of America and the assault continues as long as the blatant lie continues.

Confess your sins of, if not voting for or supporting him (I don't know), then for failing to reject him out loud for the world to see. Go ahead, it will be cathartic.

A digression: If God is the universe, then everywhere you look . . . .

But yeah, anyone can prove A = A; but how to prove A does not = -A. It's not my burden because I never made the claim.

I wrote a rant but deleted it. It was beneath me.

I find there cannot be reasonable debate unless and until the person I would engage with publicly and sincerely turns their back on Trump and the alleged theft of the election. There is only one real place to have an intelligent, moderated debate on the record. The Republicans pursued that avenue in several different venues and they lost. Donald Trump continues to insist he won. He is a loser, and a bad one at that.

One might ask, why not argue other points? Ask Elizabeth Cheney or any other member of the Republican Party who has not prostrated themselves before Trump. I will argue conservative principles and issues with them all day long. As for anyone else, they must first state: "Donald J. Trump lost, he is a loser, and a bad one at that." Then I will engage.

Hmm— do you recall the name? — Xtrix

I did not, but I found this on Google: https://www.cjr.org/politics/bill-green-ad-susan-collins.php

Probably him.

The tax rate being high eventually worked its magic (creating all kinds of tax havens and cheating). — synthesis

The tax rate being high worked it's magic long before the tax shenanigans kicked in in response. The taxes loop holes came along and then we cut taxes on top of that, for a double down for the rich and a double fking for everyone else.

Wise words. Especially about showing them what it means to govern for the people. But it always comes down to shoe leather.

My sister, in Maine, said Collins was pushed over the top by some last minute outdoor T.V. personality that everyone loves.

Thanks for your thoughts.

An inefficient economy will eventually produce no profit and things will spiral down and out of control as happens every time some dufus attempts to implement socialist "solutions." — synthesis

Actually, an inefficient economy will produce HUGE profits and things will spiral down and out of control as happens every time some dufus tries trickle down "solutions."

If you want to look back at the "Golden Years" of a thriving American middle class (I know, they were not golden for minorities or women, but they were the years that trickle down types like to look back on with dreamy eyes) you might want to check the marginal tax rates and compare them with today.

It is what it is, but just the same, the less economic distortions, the better. — synthesis

That all depends upon whose economic distortions are the few we let in.

When things gets this out of hand, you must have leadership willing to stand-up to the entrenched players (but not radicals that believe we should do idiotic things). That never ends well. — synthesis

The radicals are the natural and expected "it is what it is" response to things having already gotten out of hand, because the few economic distortions we have allowed in are the self-identified free-market types who left the "enlightened" part of "enlightened self-interest" at the door.

Sum and substance: If you don't roll with capitalists like Elizabeth Warren, then you get to sleep with fascist nationalists like Trump, or socialists like AOC and Sanders. I'll take the latter any day, since their brand seems to work for all first world countries. Anyone who doesn't like it needs to pump the breaks on the delusional self-identifies liars.

You have to let the market determine what the correct wage should be. The more distortions you introduce into the economy, the less efficient it becomes. A job's worth is dependent on what value that job produces and the supply/demand factors (of labor and labor output). — synthesis

The problem with your analysis is this: If we paid true cost (which free-market capitalism would demand), then the price of every single product and service would shut the markets down. What this means is, if the markets are not shut down, then the price of every single product and service we currently enjoy is subsidized by socialized costs. In other words, labor (not to mention the Earth) currently subsidizes the self-identified capitalist, and not labor itself. So successful has this socialism for the self-identified capitalists (consumers of labor) been, they can actually purchase government to further subsidize them with limitations on liability (read personal responsibility) via the corporation, caps on damages, etc., as well as permitting them tax avoidance and investments in emerging markets overseas. These markets overseas are where the labor supply outstrips the demand due to un-capitalist policies (communism, dictators, etc.). So, the consumer of labor again avails himself of policies and legislation that is anything but capitalist.

The invisible hand is giving a hand job to self-identified capitalists, while screwing the labor supply.


.