"The best" is something relative. 99.000 (Camp Nou) > 81.000 (Bernabeu), it's a fact, it's fundamentally different.

Yes. Your resist torture for something palpable, like protecting your family, or for something less palpable, like an ideal or simply because you hate your enemy. Why would you do this or not? I have no idea, I just know that some went through the torture and pain until the end. — Eugen

Sure, some have. I don't think their tortures were likely to have been patient enough, not like the nice base the psychic driver experiments used in Canada.

But that issue, the effectiveness of torture, or the ability to choose to resist it, is not the issue I was addressing there (though I have been in other posts) I was focused on the issue of choice that is not driven by desire. I don't know what that means. The only reason to choose to override the determined parts of the body (as you view it) that just want the pain to end, would to be satisfy other desires, often to protect what one loves. Well, that's a desire. I don't see what it means to make a free choice that is not based on desire. And desires involve bodies, emotions, what would metaphorically (and perhaps literally also) be called decisions of the heart.

There was this Romanian ruler killed by Austro-Hungarians. He was put in a steel armchair that was slowly heated with fire, they put a hot steel crown on his head and torture him in any possible way until he died because of the hot chair. History says he didn't even make a whimper. I don't know if that's true or not, but he definitely didn't talk and he defied his torturers until the end. — Eugen

OK with a reminder that my point was the above, that I don't know what free will advocates are talking about when they see free choice as somehow above desires, this is a perfect example of poor torture. If the idea is turn someone against their own values. Sounds like he likely died within one day. This is like comparing throwing a kitchen knife at someone's head to neurosurgery. Instead of starting by burning his ass and legs, they could keep him from sleeping for a month. Then put him in stress positions. Play loud music and shine bright lights on him or like was done in Waco at the KOresh compound, play sounds of animals being killed for hours a day. Then do interrogations that are not meant to cause pain but rather confusion. Then used drugs force sleep on them, so they are ony awake a couple of hours over every few days. Then...well, one can mine my earlier posts for more. Occasionally, sure, rape them. It's amazing what rape can to a male ruler. And do it on and on and tell him that they are stealing his manhood. Occasionally, sure, do some pain stuff. Burns create incredible challenges for the survival of the body. There are many ways to inflict pain that do vastly less damage, so you can send them back into brainwashing, sensory overload, manipulation, lies, stress positions and isolation. I would guess I am not as tough as that guy. But I consider it possible tremendous rage and love of my family might keep me silent for a day. I don't think so, but I can't be sure. It's a blunt attack on a person. And patience and destruction of the self take time.

But as I've previously said, there are different types of actions, and the capacity to act against your instinctual and unconscious brain, when you against all the physical signals that could be monitored in your brain, when all your chemistry orders you to do something but you're taking the opposite path, well, for me that's free will. — Eugen

It seems to me the choice is based on what one values, the love of family - so how they treated you, social ideas, the love you feel for them, empathy......

CAUSES.

The problem for free will advocates is to show that somehow things that went before did not cause what comes after.

The love that is built up over time - and I think it would be odd to say one chooses to love one's children - would be a cause from the moment before the decision to resist.

The ideal that I got from my parents and culture about not giving in that is also a cause in such situations, comes from the moment before and has in turn, going back further in time been caused, slowly over time, by external factors and by my inborn temperment. A cause.

I am not sitting in some causeless realm randomly choosing to resist torture over my body's impulses. I am following desires and ideals that were present before they starting torturing me.

CAuses.

I am not a determinist. That position has other problems.

But free will people seem to think what has come before, for example in this situation, does not cause what comes after.

Well, that would mean I make a decision not based on my desires, which were there before, not based on my past, which was there before, not based on my culture, which was there before, not based on my psychology, which was there before, not based on my values, which were built up before, not based on my relationships, which were present before I was taken to the torture room.

No I make a causeless decsion, free from the past, which includes free from all of me.

Honestly, Eugene, this will be my last post, because I feel lke we are going in circles even if we do agree about some things, and I get frustrated when I feel like people don't want to look at something scary, while I do look at it. Determinism is scary. I can't prove it wrong, but I don't feel it has been proven. However when I see arguments like yours, I know they don't make sense. And I think you are smart enough to know that you haven't demonstrated free will, just postulated it. Perhaps there is free will, but your argument does not makes sense. And what value would a free will be if the choices I made were not directly caused by things prior to my making that choice? It would not be based on my values and desires. It'd be random.

I'm out.

I had a hunch before, but now I am sure you haven't read my posts carefully.

1. I stated repeatedly, even in my last post that EVERYTHING WE DO IS BASED ON DESIRES. I have also mentioned that EVERY desire has a CAUSE. So why are you still arguing that?
I am not saying I have demonstrated something, I just said is obvious that when some desires get in conflict with the others and it is NOT the physical or chemical world that ultimately decides in some cases. Therefore, those situations are not deterministic. Determinism is not just scary, is also stupid and it becomes dangerous when people actually take it seriously. I am smart enough to realise that it is just one of those things that look smart and "TOTB" at the beginning, but that eventually gets sillier and sillier once you go through it.
For the last time: if you were to monitor one's body with high-tech devices (like Liebet experiment) and all his physical signals indicate he will eat because of hunger but eventually he won't, than you've just debunked determinism. There's no relevance in what initially caused his desire to oppose the deterministic world of chemicals. Maybe he just wanted to contradict determinism haha. Why do you think in Liebet's experiment they won't let you try "fight against" the machine? Because you can actually do it and invalidate their silly experiment.

2. I noticed every time I give examples of people who resisted torture, you just say torture was sloppy. It is like saying "...this contradicts my view, but my view is 100% right, therefore it must have been something wrong with the torture". But let's think otherwise: what if the victims of the Canadian experiment were just weak? After all, Pitesti experiment was far more brutal and crueler and it lasted long enough, yet, it failed in some cases. Trust me, the "Securitate" weren't sloppy.

"Pitesti experiment was the most terrible act of barbarism in the contemporary world." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel prize winner

PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY

1. I am sure with proper training you could get over a rape. If you throw away the symbolic part of masculinity and other alpha-male silly things, you'll realise it is just a matter of physical contact. There were many guys raped who didn't break. There were men who ate feces and they got used to and did it just like a routine. It wasn't pleasant, but with exercise and a deep understanding of the situation, you'll get over it.

2. The noise part - If a torturer rewinds a cassette with the same phrase over and over again, you can simply get used to it and become immune. Proper training could solve this one too, there are people who live in sleep in terrible noises, many of them being repetitive. In fact, these people get so used to them and it becomes hard to re-accommodate to a normal environment.

3. Simply making someone lose his/her mind - this was actually a problem for torturers in Pitesti. They actually stop torturing those who went crazy and treated them. Only after they re-became normal they re-started torture. If you want to deal with a schizophrenic and convince them of something... good luck!

4. In my opinion, with proper training and mental strength, one could resist any psychological torture. So the last frontier remains the physical pain.

I respect your decision to stop writing, even if I consider you took this decision because you hadn't read my things properly and you simply jumped to some conclusions. This debate with you has really helped me to find some answers. Maybe the most interesting part is that I was overall in line with your opinion, but now I am 50/50. Maybe torture can be withstood after all.

To answer your last question: the fact that there are causes (and I agree they are there all the time) behind my values, this doesn't mean I will act according to my values.

Thank you!

To answer your last question: the fact that there are causes (and I agree they are there all the time) behind my values, this doesn't mean I will act according to my values. — Eugen

So your free will allows you to do things that do not fit your values and desires. That might be true, but it's not a freedom that offers me much. In this model I could choose to slap my wife for making a joke better than I did. I don't want to and it doesn't fit my values and I don't feel a bodily urge to do it, but I can choose to do this.

I don't know what this version of free will offers me. Note: t hat's not an argument against it being the case. It just is a version of freedom that offers me nothing of value. I want to do things I want to do. I want to do things I positively value (consciously or unconsciously).

As for the torture: I don't think you are right. You think you are. Neither of us will test it. Perhaps some day one of us will be proven right, though I doubt.

But the least you could have done was concede that a burning hot metal chair that leads to a death at most in a few days is not a test of anything. It's primarily pain and fear over a short period of time.
I think you are quite incorrect about how incredibly effective sound tortures are and since we can vary the sounds, which is what they do generally, the repetition argument holds no water. You can have random pauses, radical changes in volume, intersperse moments of pleasant music so the person relaxes, and do the same with lights, smell, hit cultural taboos and so on.

4. In my opinion, with proper training and mental strength, one could resist any psychological torture. So the last frontier remains the physical pain. — Eugen

I would guess the combination is the hardest.

Simply making someone lose his/her mind - this was actually a problem for torturers in Pitesti. They actually stop torturing those who went crazy and treated them. Only after they re-became normal they re-started torture. If you want to deal with a schizophrenic and convince them of something... good luck! — Eugen

Yeah, you stop for a while, then you can put things in or start again. And you don't make them schizophrenics, you give them psychotic breaks, PTSD, dissociate disorders.

But this is all details. Neither of us can demonstrate what can be ruled out.

I don't want to talk about it any more.

this is a perfect example of poor torture — Coben

This is a perfect example of the fallacy of equivocation by persuasive definition. It's only 'real' torture if it conforms to my definition...for which there cannot be counterexamples.

If someone specifically intends to submit to the worst effects of the torture, then torture must be ineffective. Torture only succeeds where the human will fails.

Ok, hopefully, torture will disappear because I think it's the ugliest thing that exists.
For me free will represents one's capacity to oppose his/her primary needs in order to achieve a goal that is not physically active. I don't care about the freedom itself, this is an abstract notion anyway. If my sacrifice it's not the result of a direct physical cause (and this is not very hard to demonstrate), then there's no determinism. Some of our decisions are simply caused by our "free" choice to act according to or against our ideals, ideals which are also probably determined. Determinism = physical chain and if you can act against it, then you're not 100% determined. Therefore we have a degree of autonomy and we hold responsibility for some of our actions. Causality does not automatically imply determinism. Big Bang is the initial cause of everything, but not even determinists state that because there was Big Bang, therefore everything is determined.
If you had a supercomputer knowing all my past and body reactions, it would still be incapable of knowing if I will choose to eat or hold on to my diet at one moment, because it will only be capable to measure the "hunger" signals, because only those will be active.
Your mistake is that you consider that HAVING A CAUSE = BEING DETERMINED. Some physical causes transform into reasons and they act differently. Even if what I call mind is caused by some physical events, it doesn't mean it's also physical. There's also information and in some cases, information gets a degree of autonomy from the physical world. Of course it is influenced, but not always determined.
I can't demonstrate that, but I am sure in few decades the technology will be able to show if we're only physical reactions or not.

Flawless reply!

This is a perfect example of the fallacy of equivocation by persuasive definition. It's only 'real' torture if it conforms to my definition...for which there cannot be counterexamples. — Pantagruel

Hm, in the context of my long discussion of torture with Eugen, I had long emphasized that long periods of time, combinations of various kinds of torture, are both more effective at getting people to say or do what you want, if only temporarily.

I am not saying that putting someone in a burning hot metal chair is not 'real' or real torture. I used the word poor. Eugen and I were having a discussion about if people could hold out. He then, as evidence, mentioned a ruler who was placed in a chair and I think died in under a day without making a sound, so the legend goes. I think that's poor torture (if one, for example, wants information or want to change their mind about something - the latter being the main focus of our discussion. I think that something, however painful, tha t lasts one day, is poor torture, in the context of my discussion with him, given the goals we were talking about.

I don't know where 'rea' came from.

It's only 'real' torture if it conforms to my definition...for which there cannot be counterexamples. — Pantagruel

I don't think you understand the context. It happens, but I was not in any way saying that what he described was not torture. That's torture.

If someone specifically intends to submit to the worst effects of the torture, then torture must be ineffective. Torture only succeeds where the human will fails. — Pantagruel

I don't know what you are talking about here. There are a lot of reasons people torture, so the second statement is not something I have said or agree with. I don't know if the first sentence is supposed to be what I am saying (actually not sure about either of them) or you are now presenting your opinions. I don't know what the context is of someone intending to submit to torture. I don't know how it relates to what I said.

I don't know what the context is of someone intending to submit to torture. — Coben

If someone intends to be made a martyr, for example.

What???? It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Where have I argued that something is not real torture? (for exmaple) Of course what that ruler when through was real torture. The issue, as I understood it, was whether one could ALWAYS or some people could ALWAYS hold out under ANY torture.

If for some reason you have gotten the impression I think that being killing in a burning hot metal chair is not torture, I failed to be clear. Of course that's torture. Of course he resisted if it was a he.

I thought I made it clear when I said I would likely have been broken by that torture. IOW that's me saying it is torture and that he managed to resist where I thought I might not be able to. That's me being open and honest about my own sense that I am not someone who is great at resisting. I am 100% sure that there are many people much, much better than me, and also that some people can be trained to be better, even me. None of that contradicts anything I have been saying.

When I say it's a poor torture, I meant as an example of a torture form demonstrating that there are people who can withstand any torture. You have been asserting that people can or probably can resist any torture. You gave an example of a torture, presumably to show how well people can resist and I pointed out that this is not a very effective type of torture compared to long term ones that include psychic driving.

And all this is in my posts.

OK, what does that have to do with one of my positions?

↪Pantagruel OK, what does that have to do with one of my positions? — Coben

I guess it contradicts it.

. I am just saying the torturer can force X. Can make x happen — Coben

I guess it contradicts it. — Pantagruel

That people are martyrs (some people) proves that torturers cannot break people`? Cannot force them to give up information. That regardless of the torture some people will never give up information or have their minds broken down through psychic driving?

Could you give me the steps in the argument, instead of just saying it contradicts my position?

I certainly admit that some people intentionally put themselves in situations where they will be tortured. I believe that it true. I just don't think it contradicts what I've said.

He's saying that some people cannot be broken. He used the example of someone tortured for a day. I think that's poor evidence that people cannot be broken because it's not very effective torture. Sure, some people put themselves into a position to be tortured. Taht doesn't mean they wouldn't break under the more sophisticated forms of torture.

I've already admitted that I can't prove my position, and neither can he for that matter. I wanted to leave it there. Your counterexamples are not counterexamples to my position. I never said that other torture wasn't real.

I never said that no one can resist torture, which would be utterly clear if you read my earlier posts. Fine you didn't, but then I pointed out that you did not seem to understand the context, and you keep coming with the same not understanding the context. And you couldn't even be bothered to concede that I was not saying the torture I referred to as poor was not real.

And now you post without even arguing the point, just announcing victory.

I am done with the torture discussion. And.... that was just silly. He was not responding to my positions, he doesn't even understand that you think some people will be able to resist anything and I don't. What the hell. I even conceded that neither of us can prove our positions. Now I am out for good. I mean seriously, I can understand him joining in and not knowing the context, but you've been a part of the discussion with me from the beginning. Jesus.

I can understand him joining in and not knowing the context, but you've been a part of the discussion with me from the beginning. Jesus. — Coben

I was actually the second person to respond to the OP, ahead of yourself.

What???? It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Where have I argued that something is not real torture? (for exmaple) Of course what that ruler when through was real torture. The issue, as I understood it, was whether one could ALWAYS or some people could ALWAYS hold out under ANY torture.

If for some reason you have gotten the impression I think that being killing in a burning hot metal chair is not torture, I failed to be clear. Of course that's torture. Of course he resisted if it was a he.

I thought I made it clear when I said I would likely have been broken by that torture. IOW that's me saying it is torture and that he managed to resist where I thought I might not be able to. That's me being open and honest about my own sense that I am not someone who is great at resisting. I am 100% sure that there are many people much, much better than me, and also that some people can be trained to be better, even me. None of that contradicts anything I have been saying.

When I say it's a poor torture, I meant as an example of a torture form demonstrating that there are people who can withstand any torture. You have been asserting that people can or probably can resist any torture. You gave an example of a torture, presumably to show how well people can resist and I pointed out that this is not a very effective type of torture compared to long term ones that include psychic driving. — Coben

Dude, I never said that. Relax...

I didn't talk only about one-day torture, I have mentioned the Pitesti experiment several times. It lasted 2 years and the torture was virtually non-stop and it came all kinds of forms. It is considered unique in its effects on oneself. Mao copied it in Pekin prison but with a far lower degree of brutality.
If there was "proper" torture in this world, than the "Securitate" and the communist regime would be artists. Even in these circumstances, some people resisted.

I would love to debate more with you, I really do believe you have strong arguments.

Disclaimer: please read this post in the lighthearted manner in which it was posted.

That's just the way it is with the question of whether at least one god exists or not. One or the other is the REALITY...and humans are simply not capable of knowing which it is. So they have to guess. — Frank Apisa

Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...? — Frank Apisa

That's an awfully reductive approach to a metaphysical question. Is it reasonable to apply that approach to the entirety of axiomatic beliefs?

- Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood.

50-50?

- Either you can accept that other people actually exist...or you're the only consciousness in existence and this is all in your head.

50-50?

- Either logic & reason are efficient tools for uncovering truth...or they're a placebo to make us feel better about our beliefs...or at least make you feel better about yours since you may be the only consciousness in existence.

50-50?

The importance of metaphysics is that the conclusions one arrives at snowball into the rest of their beliefs/knowledge. If you've only got a 50-50 chance of being right about not being the only consciousnesses in existence, how in the world do you feel confident enough to offer ideas on anything else at all? Isn't it just as likely you're a fool (the only fool) arguing with yourself?

Frankly, that sort of skepticism seems a strong argument for the existence of "something" (call it God, god, higher power, grand-puba, what have you). Else we could have no starting point from which to even begin discussing anything. ie. - either something knows the answers to these things and that knowledge is available to us...or we are wandering in the dark with no ability to find anything AND THERE'S NO POINT IN DISCUSSING ANYTHING.

Every thread on this board should dispense with reasoning and argument.

Bottom line: Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...? — Frank Apisa

So, there's a fifty percent chance that there's at least one God?

Aussie
18
Disclaimer: please read this post in the lighthearted manner in which it was posted. — Aussie

Okay. And thank you for replying.

That's just the way it is with the question of whether at least one god exists or not. One or the other is the REALITY...and humans are simply not capable of knowing which it is. So they have to guess.
— Frank Apisa

Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...?
— Frank Apisa

That's an awfully reductive approach to a metaphysical question. Is it reasonable to apply that approach to the entirety of axiomatic beliefs? — Aussie

To the former: It may seem to be...but what I am asserting is so.

To the latter...the question: I'm not sure what "axiomatic beliefs" are, but I suspect it is reasonable to apply it to EVERY issue where "belief" is used to describe a guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence. (You may be able to persuade me otherwise. We shall see.)

So that we are not overwhelmed, Aussie, let's take this discussion in small parcels...and after dealing with each, move on to the next. Item one:

- Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood.

50-50? — Aussie

I respectfully suggest a false dichotomy. And even if the false dichotomy did not exist...I would disagree with the premise.

For instance, can you truly "trust your senses" with regard to whether or not the sun, moon, and stars circle the Earth...or must other non-sensory factors be brought into play?

What say you about the false dichotomy...and what say you about whether or not we can trust our senses?

Coben
1.4k
Bottom line: Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...?
— Frank Apisa

So, there's a fifty percent chance that there's at least one God? — Coben

That is not what I said. Any estimates about the existence or non-existence of any gods is no better than a coin flip.

But one or the other has to be correct by dint of the meaning of being said using the English language. Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist. It is a mutually exclusive situation as set by language. It cannot be that no gods exist AND at least one god exists.

But if a person makes a guess one way or the other...there is a 50/50 chance that the guess is correct.

If you think that is not so...just give me your reasoning. We can discuss it.

It's mostly I am checking, not that I have a different opinion I want to argue for.

evidence need not be binary. IOW you could have some information that make A more likely than B, though we cannot know. We might have deductive or empirical reasons to think B is more likely than A. But in the case of God, you are saying there is nothing deductive, empirical or otherwise that should make anyone think one of those two statements is more likely.

I think you were around when I brought up the example of the new species of feline.

If we shifted that to a not before noticed large species of feline in New England I would be agnostic. I don't know. Perhaps there is one, perhaps there is not. If we are going on a couple of sightings by people I do not know, while I am an agnostic on the issue,

I will consider more likely there is no undiscovered species. I think we would have noticed it before and with much greater regularity than a couple of people.

So, even in some situations where one cannot know, one may have some indications that one of the options is more likely. On the one hand, in this example, we have a couple of sightings. On the other side I have a more deductive based sense that it is much more likely they saw something else, they were drunk, it was a hoax, etc. We could shift around the context like to Manhattan or to a jungle in Borneo or increase the number of sightings, or give the sighters expertise and so on. And shift around the push and pull to one side or the other.

You, in seems to me, feel there is nothing that gives any extra weight at all to either side. This being radically different from anything remotely proving either side. Again, it does not have to be binary. But you are saying there is nothing to indicate at all either side of the coin.

If that is case, and I presume it is, God I wish you would go over to Sciforums and harrass them for a while. I don't know if the particular atheists are still there but likely one or two are. One was always saying that it has been demonstrated there is no God. I always thought that was not just wrong, but kinda funny. Wrong that is has been demonstrated.

Regarding faith, one of the main targets of communists in the Pitesti experiment was to make their victims lose faith in God. The result was actually the opposite, many of them becoming monks after they were released and most of them saying that they started to have a far stronger faith during the torture, and that faith helped them went trough the whole re-education process.
So convincing through torture may actually have a very surprising outcome.

I respectfully suggest a false dichotomy. — Frank Apisa

Suggest it if you like, but one does not exist. What other option exists? Our senses either provide us reliable perceptions of the world around us (at least to some reasonable degree)...or they do not.

...even if the false dichotomy did not exist...I would disagree with the premise.

For instance, can you truly "trust your senses" with regard to whether or not the sun, moon, and stars circle the Earth...or must other non-sensory factors be brought into play? — Frank Apisa

My statement said nothing about the interaction of non-sensory factors such as whether reason can further inform sensory perceptions or not. The qualifier "at least to some reasonable degree" leaves open the possibility for optical illusions and examples such as the relative motion of heavenly bodies. However, I would suggest, generally speaking, prior to invoking non-sensory factors, one must first have perceived (observed with their senses) something with some reasonable amount of accuracy - like there is movement of heavenly bodies. Additionally, isn't further invocation of non-sensory factors initiated by perceiving (observing with our senses) another phenomena that calls into question one's current understanding of the prior observation (such as Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus or Bessel's observation of parallax). Adding non-sensory factors to the mix doesn't negate the necessity of sense-perception being a reliable source of information (at least to some reasonable degree) in the affair from start to finish. It either is or it isn't. If it is, we're probably on the right track when it comes to our understanding of the movement of heavenly bodies. If we can't know if it is, then really we can't say with any degree of certainty that we understand the movement of heavenly bodies at all...if they even move...if they're even there.

To push my faux-cynicism just a little further regarding your example...one might say it was NOT the senses (observations/perceptions) of early humans that was in error. It was the non-sensory factors in actuality that lead early peoples to conclude the earth was still and only other heavenly bodies moved. What they saw (perceived/observed) is no different than what you and I see now. It is the understanding that is the different. But that line of thought leads into my 3rd question and I don't want to get ahead...

Aussie
23
I respectfully suggest a false dichotomy.
— Frank Apisa

Suggest it if you like, but one does not exist. What other option exists? Our senses either provide us reliable perceptions of the world around us (at least to some reasonable degree)...or they do not. — Aussie

You wrote: " Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood."

I suggested a false dichotomy.

Now I insist that to be a false dichotomy.

Let's deal with that first...and then go on to whatever else you said.

If you are not able to acknowledge the false dichotomy either because you do not understand that it is...or because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement...let's not bother.

Aren't opinions polished by life experiences and the more polished they get, the stronger and harder to change they become?
Eg.: Alex and David are friends and they criticize politicians for being corrupt. David decides to become a politician and starts to be corrupt. Alex meets him and asks how could such an anti-corruption fighter became corrupt? Alex answers that he was dumb and naive when he was younger and that life is just about taking care of yourself. After few years, David is charged for corruption and sent to prison. There he realises how fool he was and how wrong he was being corrupt.
In the end, he goes back to politics but this time with the desire to be fair.
Well... he basically went through all kind of stages, from an anti-corruption activist to a corrupt himself and then a straight man again.
Will all these variations make his next opinion stronger or he will become more confused?

If you are not able to acknowledge the false dichotomy either because you do not understand that it is...or because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement...let's not bother. — Frank Apisa

Ending your claim that my argument is a false dichotomy by presenting one yourself doesn't bode well for your case.

EITHER I don't understand that it is OR I'm unethical? How unimaginative, Thank you for the laugh.

But I will happily let this conversation drop seeing you don't appear interested in actually responding with more than a repeated counter claim absent reasoning behind it.

By your logic, I can only conclude that's because you EITHER don't understand the argument presented...OR because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement.

Ending your claim that my argument is a false dichotomy by presenting one yourself doesn't bode well for your case.

EITHER I don't understand that it is OR I'm unethical? How unimaginative, Thank you for the laugh.

But I will happily let this conversation drop seeing you don't appear interested in actually responding with more than a repeated counter claim absent reasoning behind it.

By your logic, I can only conclude that's because you EITHER don't understand the argument presented...OR because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement. — Aussie

I did not say that you either do not understand or are unethical, Aussie. I said, "If you are not able to acknowledge the false dichotomy either because you do not understand that it is...or because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement...let's not bother." I purposefully left open the possibility that you are not acknowledging the false dichotomy for some OTHER reason...a reason which might allow for a continuation of the discussion.

But, you still will not acknowledge your false dichotomy even though it is staring you in the face. And you still have not presented a reason for you not being willing to acknowledge it.

Okay...I get that.

Some people just cannot acknowledge when they are wrong...whatever the reason.

- Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood. — Aussie

This is the first way you worded it. You worded it a bit differently the second time and it was less problematic that way, but still problematic.

I think Frank is right, this is binary where it is not binary. The first part of the sentence obviously includes the idea that there are degrees of accuracy, the second makes it seem like it is not.

Let's test this: Let's say someone has a mental illness and they know it. And they can't trust their senses (since sometimes or often they hallicinate and can't tell the difference on those occasions.
This does not entail that all their perceptions are falsehood. Perhaps when they went to what looked like a fridge that morning and saw a beer, it was a beer and they drank it. Now perhaps all through breakfast they butterflies that did not exist and heard the voice of God telling them to kill their neighbor...again this does not rule out many of their perceptions being the case.

If you had worded it 'If you can't trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) all your perceptions are suspect'. I think that is defensible. It is not claiming that if you can't trust your senses this means all perceptions are false. It does highlight how this situation is extremely problematic in situ, since then one is likely to and perhaps should put an asterisk next to most perceptions. What can one be sure of? Though even then one might be able to create degrees of certainty.

Only brainwashing or the grace of God can change a core belief. Ormaybe what Kuhn calls anomolies can build up to the point where they compel a paradigm shift. But ideologues are resourceful: there are still people who think that they can predict history,

I do find your answer challenging. I have thought about this many times. But what makes something to become irreversible? It's like having infinite power, and immunity. I could actually give an example: I have some things in my house that I care for, but I could give them for free. Other things are more important and I care more for them, so I would sell them only for a good price. As for my apartment itself, it is very important for me so I wouldn't sell it for 500.000 USD (although it costs around 50.000 USD). But at the end of the day, I would probably sell my apartment for 1 million USD. So everything I've exposed has a finite resistance. But if someone asked me to lose a dear member of my family in exchange for infinite money for the rest of my life, I would refuse. So basically, at least from this perspective, there is something with unlimited resistance. So where is the border between limited/ reversible and unlimited/irreversible?