Yeah - she dropped the lawsuit, there we go. Trump never settled it. — Agustino

No, not there we go. He settled the other case. Curious how your suspicion and cynicism evaporates when it's about Trump. You don't suspect that there was any link, any relation, any pressure, any negotiation, between settling the one case and dropping the other? No, of course you don't, because of your bias.

No, not there we go. He settled the other case. Curious how your suspicion and cynicism evaporates when it's about Trump. You don't suspect that there was any link, any relation, any pressure, any negotiation, between settling the one case and dropping the other? No, of course you don't, because of your bias. — Sapientia

No, but with my limited knowledge of the situation, I suspect that Trump had done something that was illegal in the business and he would have lost that case, hence why he settled. Simple. And I also suspect that the wife started the other case merely to add pressure on Trump for the case he was having against her husband, which is exactly why she dropped it as soon as they got what they wanted from that case.

You seem hell bent toward holding fast to suspicions and impressions rather than the facts-of-the-matter, which I think is why many here find your approach to the topics discussed as being obtuse and hypocritical, to varying degrees.

Have you ever watched Lumet's '12 Angry Men'? If not, perhaps watch it and see how truth can be elusive, especially when facts are hard to come by.

Interesting you're not the first to recommend that movie to me, so I will now watch it :P I'll let you know what I think.

The reason why I'm hellbent on holding fast to suspicions and impressions is because I believe we should train our minds to draw the right conclusions (if possible) even with little data available. In life we need to make judgements, because things have practical implications - we can't afford not to for fear that we may be wrong - because not making a judgement is often making a wrong judgement. I've learned from my work (and studies) as an engineer - quick educated guesses when there is a problem is much better than analysis paralysis or waiting for data. You have to act quick - yes you can get things wrong, but your judgement should be trained. I used to be the opposite as a teenager and even until my final year in university - I would be very paranoid about things and would always see possibilities how I may have been wrong. This is also why I could be quite anxious, and also frequently worried about my health at small signs. But I've learned to train my judgement - to take a decision and stick to it - trust my judgement instead of doubt it. Now I'm very rarely if at all troubled by anxiety for example. Because I can judge situations. And because I've seen that I judge them accurately in general, both in my professional and personal life - I trust my knack.

People here seem to adopt a very impractical attitude of withholding judgement. This just doesn't work in life. You can't withhold judgement. You're thinking about marrying woman X. There's many things about her character you don't know - she could possibly turn out to be a nasty person. So what do you do? You need to judge! You need to choose - how is she? Is she a person with good moral character or not? You have to have the courage to risk it - is it white or black. So yes - I may be prone to mistakes, but I'm also sharpening my judgement in the process.

I honestly think you will be massively well served by reading Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, providing you don't.. judge it too hastily.

I was reading this essay by Peter Kreeft which I found very good regarding sexual morality about a week ago. I got reminded of it because of the negative reactions some folks have when discussing sexual matters:

"Sexual sins like sodomy, adultery, fornication, contraception, and masturbation are wrong not simply because the laws of the Church or society forbid them, or simply because they are not psychologically mature, and not even simply because they hurt other people (they always do, but sometimes it is easy to see how they do and sometimes it is not). They are wrong because they sin against truth, against being, against reality; because they lie about the nature of love, that is, about the nature of God, and about God's image, man. They contradict the design of the Designer who created sex in His own image."

"In fact, almost the only reason anyone in our society ever believes and teaches a philosophy of moral relativism is to justify sexual immorality. All the controversial issues in the culture war are sexual. How often have you heard arguments for moral relativism to justify nuclear war, or insider trading, or child abuse, or genocide, or racism, or even environmental pollution?"

And this is all true. I've honestly not seen a moral relativist upholding sexual morality in their lives. I've not seen it. Sure correlation isn't causation - but one must only wonder... could it be that their entire worldview is such as it's necessary for it to be merely to justify their sexual (mis)behaviour? And if so would that be true for conservatives as well? A dangerous question because it suggests the possibility that one may not decide the important questions because of their allegiance to truth, but rather because they are coherent with their sexual practices. As I see it though, conservatives are ultimately siding with what is objectively correct, as they aspire to what is highest and most beautiful in sex, and despise what is low and brings harm to themselves and others - at least in the long term.

Thank you, I have the book but haven't yet got around to reading it! So I will look into it.

I will not tackle with most of the unsubstantiated insults you keep throwing my way in your post, I'll tackle the more "substantive" issues.

Then I had the demonisation of everyone in America and the western hemisphere who isn't socially conservative as therefore progressive and "cancerous — WhiskeyWhiskers

Not the demonisation - rather I think these people have been deceived by consumerism and the mass-media to live in ways that have destroyed and demeaned their true potential - and of course they cannot recognize this, for the psychological burden would be too much. They'll never say "yes we are wrong" - they've invested too much in such a life. Philosophers like Thomas Nagel are right - they don't want God to exist - because if He does - then they're fucked. I do think what is understood in today's world by progressivism is cancerous. This over-emphasis on sex, this over-emphasis on gender, on race, on transgender, on I don't know what other lunacy is crazy - because it seeks to impose itself over everyone, and through means of social pressure pull all of society in its direction.

that Trump and his socially conservative support network are going to somehow make hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people throughout America and the rest of the western world do a 180 on their way of life, their fundamental beliefs, and their emotive behaviour, by following the Puritan-esque moral precepts of Agustino from the philosophy forum. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I have never claimed that Trump or his administration would change this. Also, none of my morality is puritanical - unless of course you also think that Judaic, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu morality is also puritanical. Now I'm asking you honestly - do you think that is the case?

Trade restrictions on currency manipulators. Oh wait, none of the US’s big trading partners had engaged in currency manipulation in the past year, the Treasury said in its twice yearly foreign exchange market report to Congress. But you and Trump know, despite not working for the Treasury, something they don't, I bet. — WhiskeyWhiskers

:-! lol - the article doesn't work for me as I need to pay to read it, but alas. Currency manipulation isn't a one-act event. It's a continuous long-term way of behaving by a central bank in order to influence its currency in order to achieve a certain goal. Now there are boundaries which limit what a country can do without undermining itself. An expensive currency means cheap imports but expensive and thus unattractive exports. A cheap currency means the opposite - expensive imports but very attractive exports. The fact is that the Chinese yuan vs the dollar is quite probably undervalued despite the protests of the IMF to the contrary. It's not as undervalued as it was in the past, because rampant Chinese inflation - something that they have been struggling to control - increased the value of the yuan beyond the point where they could fully control it by dumping it in exchange for USD. This doesn't mean they have stopped doing it - not at all. They're still doing their best to do it. China runs trade deficits with all the partners from whom it has large imports - these are mostly natural resources - countries like Saudi Arabi - which China needs to manufacture. Why are they running trade deficits? Because the yuan is still cheap - and therefore their imports are more expensive than they ought to be.

I don't need any experts to tell me China is manipulating their currency. I know it first-hand. I've worked in construction, and quite a few of the materials we were ordering were China made. I know that the Chinese get ahead due to their low price, despite inferior quality and inferior production efficiency (the two of them end up being quite tied). To stay on budget people use their materials - not the best, but good enough. Part of the reasons why they achieve such low prices - apart from low wages, which many other poorer nations also have - is their currency manipulation. In fact, China is probably draining a large part of the wealth of sorrounding Asian countries - especially the poor ones like Bangladesh, etc. through their currency manipulation. Donald Trump, sorry to tell you, actually does know what the fuck he's talking about on this point. This is actually one of the few points that he very smartly noticed.

Furthermore - you should expand your understanding. It seems to me you are stuck to what some experts are telling you. You have to consider all the constraints that are needed for publication. You need evidence for this, evidence for that - well life is such that you don't have such evidence. Many times when you really speak to an expert and get to know them, you'll find out that their actual opinions may be quite different from what they can or actually end up publishing - because they're not stuck in the "evidence evidence we want evidence" scheme - and they are freed to use their own understanding of what could possibly be happening, even if they can't prove it 100%.

He'll also "encourage an entrepreneurial mindset". As if potentially becoming a billionaire wasn't enough incentive. As if people are going to stop what they're doing with their lives to become entrepreneurs because President Trump is a billionaire. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Potentially becoming a billionaire is not a realistic incentive for your average Joe.

How can this be a strategic vote for social conservatives when Trump himself is quite clearly, under your own definition, blatantly not a social conservative? His track record proves that. He's been married three times, divorced twice, cheated on his wife, had extra-marital sex, and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You actually should be voting for Hillary - she's still married to her first husband, she hasn't committed adultery, nor has she had children out of wedlock. Trump is a "cancerous" progressive, Hillary is a social conservative according to your definition. So what the hell are you even talking about anymore? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Because by voting Trump I'm not voting FOR social conservatives, I'm voting AGAINST progressives. I have said that a million times. It's not a vote for support, it's a strategic vote. Trump will be - pragmatically - more effective at harming the progressive movement than any socially conservative candidate. So he is needed to prepare the way, as I have said.

As for Crooked being socially conservative - I highly highly highly doubt that. I highly doubt that she hasn't committed adultery. I more than highly doubt it. I would make a bet with you if I could that she has. The environment she grew up in and went to university in - the environment she worked in afterwards, and the social environment she was surrounded by would make this an extraordinary fact. Almost a miracle! Again I'm not saying it's impossible, I just can't believe it. She's not the type of person.

Yes, I'm being nasty and demanding. Because the burden of proof is on you to provide me with evidence to justify your decision. Yes, I want evidence. Your decision will affect me. Even though I don't even live in America, it will drastically affect me because we live in a globalised world. — WhiskeyWhiskers

All of our decisions affect each other. But do you see me crying to the progressives "Oh your decision to encourage promiscuity will affect me!! My children will be encouraged to follow your ways, my wife will be encouraged to screw other men and divorce me!! Ahhh such a disaster!! I demand you tell me what evidence that my wife and children won't be affected by this exists?? I am being very nasty and demanding with you, because the burden of proof is on you! You are engaging in actions which affect me!! Not directly, but they will influence my cultural environment which will in turn influence me!!!"

Of course I don't behave that way. Why would a reasonable person do that? I understand they have their interests, and I have mine, and we're both looking for ways to achieve them.

Obamacare (nothing to do with Trump). — WhiskeyWhiskers

No because it's not like Trump wants to repeal Obamacare (which by the way is what most Americans have consistently said they wanted - check the polls that I linked to you before). So stop ignoring evidence.

First of all I asked for evidence of Trumps expertise on economics, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, etc. I got nothing except watery bullshit. — WhiskeyWhiskers

A President does not require expertise on any of these issues. He requires the capacity to listen to a bunch of suggestions, and choose the best course of action. Trump, after having worked in a business which is quite possibly the most complicated business you can work in - construction - has what it takes to look at different plans and proposed courses of actions and to say "we do it this way" and then make sure that it gets done. His business as CEO of Trump Organization is precisely that - to choose from what people tell him, and to ensure that it gets done - cheaply, quickly and well. That's why he's qualified. Crooked has no real experience in doing things. Neither do many other politicians. They have experience in talking about stuff, and making big plans, we're gonna do this and we're gonna do that, while they sit with a finger up their asses. The real question is can they actually get the job done in the real world, with real people, and with all the difficulties that will come their way - difficulties one cannot plan for, and that one cannot spend hundreads of years analysing. Obama proved that he can't - with both Iraq and Obamacare for example.

I then asked for a cause and effect explanation of how being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, has any bearing on a persons ability to improve the economy, gun control, terrorism, immigration, trade, employment, wages, food stamps, poverty, home ownership, health care, energy situation etc. I got watery bullshit. — WhiskeyWhiskers

There is no direct effect of social conservatism on economics. There is an indirect one as I have argued and explained to you before. Do you have any qualms with my explanation? Any reason for thinking it may not be the case? I have explained for example how out of wedlock birth rate which is very high keeps people in cycles of perpetual poverty, crime and so forth. See you're asking me for all these detailed explanations but it seems besides the point - you're not being open minded about this, you have decided Trump is the devil and that's it.

I then asked, if being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc is a necessary condition for success in other areas of government, how do you explain Obama's success in some of these areas despite being a cancerous progressive? I was again asking for a cause and effect explanation, evidence would be nice. Instead you ignored it. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I will get to this sometime later in another post, when I tackle the factcheck matters.

I asked how, in concrete terms, a Donald Trump presidency is going to somehow reduce the divorce, adultery and cheating rates, and out of wedlock birth rates. I got watery bullshit. — WhiskeyWhiskers

And I told you in very concrete terms that it will not.

If you interviewed someone for a job as an economist, a foreign affairs advisor, a healthcare systems adviser, a counter-terrorism expert, etc all rolled into one, and in response to you asking for their qualifications they said "I build great buildings and great companies" you would be as mad as them if you didn't laugh them out the door, down the street, and have them locked up in the nearest mental institution. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes - except that Crooked and Trump aren't running for such a job :)

Then I asked if you could also cite actual evidence detailing the link between progressivism and societies moral decay. This is an empirical claim that can be observed and studied - and it would behoove society to do so, for its existence depends on recognising its own decay. You then refuse to cite any studies, and instead insist that they are in fact one and the same thing. A tautology, a trick of definitions and language. Why bother trying to establish B being caused by A when you can just say B is the same thing as A? — WhiskeyWhiskers

It's not a sleight of hand at all. It's what I mean by moral decay. A society which applauds sexual promiscuity, which approves of abortion and so forth is exactly a society undergoing moral decay.

and how you wanted the SIMPLEST possible raw calculation of divorces, which if you were to read the pages I gave you you would see why that raw number is not appropriate, but as you said earlier simplicity makes complicated things easier — WhiskeyWhiskers

No - it is actually YOU who pointed me to the simplest calculations. You pointed me to the divorce rate and said "Oh look, past 9 years it's going down". Of course you didn't perform any fucking analysis on that data. I had to do that for you, and notice that the population for the past 9 years was increasing, while the number of marriages decreased, hence obviously the divorce rate would also have a downward pressure on it. Again this is nothing but the university educated kid who knows nothing about the real world. Things aren't so simple as your simple calculations. What you should do is take that divorce rate and divide it by the marriage rate - that, although is not the best stat to measure this - does give an indiction of what chances a marriage has to end in divorce.

If you don't support Trump then you have a bloody funny way of showing it. If you support social conservatives, and Trump is a social conservative, then you support Trump. If he wasn't a social conservative, you wouldn't support him. Not only that, I'll remind you that, according to your own definition, Hillary is more socially conservative than Trump. Why don't you vote for Hillary? Let me guess, she's on team blue and Trump is on team red. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Trump ain't a social conservative. Did I ever say he was? I'm voting against the progressives - that's in accordance with a social conservative agenda.

Just because certain institutions have a liberal bias does not mean you have grounds to entirely dismiss everything they have to say. It means you take it with a pinch of salt and look at both sides of the story. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Sure - did I say you should never agree with them? Why are you jumping to such unwarranted conclusions?

Just because they don't, logically, necessarily, know any better does not mean they don't know anything at all and they're not to be trusted. Do you honestly think that a person who goes to university, studies hard on a specific subject, is tested by professors, scrutinised, corrected, recorrected, for years and years under the most stringent learning conditions and then has a successful career in their field, is not "necessarily" going to know what they're talking about?

Where else does this apply? Would you say your doctor, after having spent years in medical school and working in hospitals, doesn't "necessarily" know what they're talking about? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Sure it doesn't mean that they're not to be trusted at all - I never said that. You keep engaging in all these biases that's it's very difficult to carry this conversation. But I do think people ought to be able to think for themselves, and talk from a standpoint of knowledge with the experts.

I actually don't trust my doctor overly much. I discuss with him issues from equal to equal. My medical knowledge is very good - in fact extremely good for a lay person. I could discuss with you almost whatever subject you want about it. I have friends who currently work as doctors. They say that my knowledge is easily the equivalent of a fourth year medical student - all that I lack really is practical experience and theoretical understanding of some more obscure conditions. I have however very good pragmatic understanding of the body - when I must do something, what a certain symptom can mean, what to do in certain cases, how to track vital functions, what actions to take if someone faints, and so forth. I can read my own blood tests, i know what tests to do, I can read an EKG by myself, i know what each wave means, etc. In fact I get quite pissed if I ever go to a specialist who doesn't treat me with the necessary respect - because most doctors are quite arrogant bastards, who expect you to bow your head and submit to their "great" authority. I despise this attitude. I find the same to be the case with the lawyers I've dealt with. And I absolutely hate it - although my knowledge and understanding of the law is indeed much poorer than that of medicine - so I do tolerate it there to a certain extent. I don't have much choice.

But education obviously isn't working, so we have a very real problem. People are more educated than ever today, and many are more immoral than ever. So what does it mean then? — Agustino

That they're educated badly.

The culture must evolve itself — Agustino

I naturally agree, but when it comes to human rights violations, I take a pretty firm stand that they must be stopped and the perpetrators of them punished, no matter if the surrounding culture changes.

my point is that regardless of how you call it - removing barriers or not - the government should be actively involved in shaping the macro-economic environment. — Agustino

Alright, sure, then we agree. But I still think I'm on the right side of the semantics here, for whatever that's worth.

That they're educated badly. — Thorongil

I agree so how to educate them better?

I naturally agree, but when it comes to human rights violations, I take a pretty firm stand that they must be stopped and the perpetrators of them punished, no matter if the surrounding culture changes. — Thorongil

What if this isn't possible? You need alternatives for scenarios in which this injunction cannot be followed through successfully.

I agree so how to educate them better? — Agustino

Well, I wouldn't deign to think I could adequately answer such a question on a mere Internet forum, but for starters, I would say that we ought to invest more in the arts, place less of an emphasis on standardized testing and the use of technology in the classroom, require teachers to hold degrees in their fields (rather than in generic education degrees), and advance measures to alleviate poverty and single-parent households.

What if this isn't possible? — Agustino

Name an example.

Name an example. — Thorongil

Russia for starters. Or China.