Ireland's GDP is 6 times larger since the instantiation of the EU in 1992, so no matter what happens, we're huge winners. Anyway, carry on. But your position is an English nationalist one. And that's all. You've provided no substance to the argument that you'll be economically better off, and particularly none to the argument that the working class would be better off under the Tory Brexit.

Well, if we do go down, we'll go down with our eyes open and without blaming immigrants, who are responsible for much of our economic growth.

Oh, fair enough. Welcome to Ireland, Jacob.

I like JRM, great man , hopefully one day he'll be our prime minister so that whiners like you can cry yourselves to sleep every night dreaming of your socialist empire that will never materialise. — Chester

Oh, I'm sure he'll throw you a few scraps. But I'm not from the UK, so I'll miss out. Damn...

Keep spraying, Chester.

The liberal left has no loyalty to its own nation , its own people — Chester

Hear the rubbish they've got you spouting, so you won't notice when they turn you around and bend you over. But maybe you like that sort of thing, Luv?

@Chester's working-class hero:



He'll take care of you, son, long as you shine his top hat for him. You poor dupe. They used your ignorant xenophobic tendencies to get you to lick upper-class boots and you like the taste so much, you can't shut up about it.

@Chester

If you expect the Tories to deliver you better wages and a lower cost of living, you are off your nut Georgey-boy. Yes, the EU is avowedly neoliberal, but there are some breaks there, whereas Boris's plan is to turn you into the U.S. The mass of the population will be looted for all they've got.

If you pretend that the meaning is the same, it's equivocation, — Metaphysician Undercover

My whole point of doing what I did was to identify different types of trust. So, I'm making distinctions not obscuring them. There is a sense in which the meaning is the same and in which it's different, which I've made clear (and which we can debate further). But it is not like there are two fundamentally different meanings here, like ball (football) and ball (dance). I'll read the rest of your post when I've stopped being irritated at your inability to understand my previous explanation, which should have been enough on this point.

@Hanover @Metaphysician Undercover

We're in danger of getting lost in semantics here. But to clear up a few misunderstandings:

1) My analysis involved a mini-taxonomy of trusts. I recognize the differences in type you both pointed out. There's no equivocation seeing as I was pointing to differences not trying to obscure them.
2) My point about fixed-nature is that it's predictably fixed in terms of physical laws not outcomes. And our expectations tend to be fixed in terms of the former not the latter, which matters when it comes to complexity. We expect stuff to fall when we drop it, but we can't be sure about the weather.
3) I never claimed the physical world had "habits". I used the term "fixed-nature" as above to refer to physical laws. But we do have habits in our behaviours and attitudes towards both physical and non-physical things that are analagous.

:point:

But if you are saying you trust things more than people, then you yourself are using the same term and making a comparison in the same terms. — unenlightened

:yawn:

Netherlands: 488 people per km squared
UK: 274 people per km2 squared

it is the political liberal left that has caused division and hate in our society. — Chester

..what a bunch of cunts. — Chester

LMAO.

I love the Orwellian "depopulated".

I ought to have mentioned that your previous post was very close to what I was trying to express there. :up:

Why must we dichotomize things in such a way that we look for the degree of trust or mistrust in every relation we have with the world? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because the premise here is that trust is basic to the human condition.

would place both trust and mistrust as reasoned approaches, like you do here, but the majority of interactions which we have are habitual of nature, and therefore fall outside the classification of a reasoned approach, and cannot be described as either trusting or mistrusting. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your leveraging of a distinction here related to habit only highlights the usefulness of a deeper analysis of the concept of trust. You even seem to acknowledge this in the rest of your post. Is it that I was speaking normatively not descriptively the stumbling block? Yes, we do things out of habit. Sometimes that is justified and sometimes not. We should apply reason to know the difference. i.e. that habit is not always borne of conscious reasoning is not a justification for not applying conscious reasoning to it, and when we do, we see habit is largely a matter of trust and largely within our control.

but shouldn't we distinguish two fundamentally different forms of "trust" then? — Metaphysician Undercover

There's no fundamental dichotomy there. Trust occurs both across a spectrum of relationship levels and relates to a spectrum of expectations. What we require for our trust is what determines its character. And looking at these requirements, we can hypothesize and debate the exact nature of many "trusts" and come to no definitive answer. But the point is more to recognize distinctions that help clarify both why we grant trust at different levels or in different contexts and what the justifications for this are.

For example (at a minimum):

Trust of family presumes love.
Trust of friends presumes loyalty.
Trust of acquaintances presumes integrity.
Trust of workmates presumes competence.
Trust of companies presumes production of value.
Trust of the media presumes accuracy.
Trust of the justice system presumes impartiality.
Trust of the military presumes strength.
Trust of a political system presumes equality of opportunity.
Trust of the physical world presumes a fixed nature.

In the final case above, the instantiation of habit (fixed behaviour) occurs as a reflection of and in response to the physical world's fixed nature and that's not something that normally needs to be questioned. But habit can and does appear at every level in different ways. Also, further to the above, we can get our wires crossed and either grant trust on an irrational presumption or withhold it on an irrational expectation. And so we move from the descriptive to the normative. Why should we trust X? And the (easier): Why should we not trust X?

I've posited above, for example, that we require at least loyalty from our friends to avoid mistrust. To me, that seems fairly uncontroversial. So, someone who put their trust in a friend who was disloyal would be setting themselves up for a fall. But we're talking necessary not sufficient conditions here, so for justified trust, we may need more depending on the context, e.g. reliability if we're to lend them money etc.

It would be easy to get bogged down in this, but I want to bring up the issue of political leaders, which are not on the list but are where I think we make some of the biggest mistakes in terms of trust. The question would be: What is a minimum requirement for trust in a political leader to be rational?

For a lot of people, the answer seems to be "strength" and I think that's the wrong answer, not only because strength is often confused with stubbornness, arrogance, fecklessness, aggressiveness etc. but because we need our political leaders to work for us and "strength" is the domain of warriors not servants. We need something more inclusive. Any ideas?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-update-us-deaths-to-covid-19-exceed-vietnam-war-toll-and-pence-slammed-for-not-wearing-face-mask-2020-04-29

So, I guess Trump's Vietnam is no longer STDs.

Speaking of predictions, the 60,000 nonsense is out the window and IHME have revised up to 72,000 for US deaths. I'm sticking with 100,000. The US are just not smart enough to deal with this properly. Australia and NZ on the other hand will be showing the rest of the West that these huge numbers didn't have to happen and it's not just the governments' faults, Every idiot who was told months ago what needed to be done and downplayed this is responsible.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

Oh yeah, Google, when you're talking about business-level trust, trust of entities in a market, you can divorce trust from notions of integrity and as @Christoffer suggested, look to the factors that are most necessary for the entity in question to maximize its market viability. If trust happens to be one of those factors then that in itself is a bootstrappy justification for a degree of trust.

Basically what happens is that when there is growth in these brave new neoliberal times, the rich take all the cream. When there's then a recession they live on that while the poor are told there's no milk left.

So, we subsist simultaneously in different and embedded contexts/realms: physical, sociocultural, political, familial, personal etc. In each, trust needs to be defined differently. Seeing as, on a broad view, our behaviour travels much narrower and deeper furrows in the landscape of possibilities than we're aware of, trust in some realms is just part of our basic functioning in that realm. So, on one end of the spectrum, to lose (long-term) trust in the stable contours of the physical world is to succumb to serious mental illness. On the other, to lose trust in an individual is an inevitable part of growing up. I guess the question @unenlightened poses is how far distrust can expand outwards without dangerously destabilizing the foundations on which we build functioning social relations. Good question seeing as a certain amount of distrust is not just desirable but necessary for social progress. Yet mass breakdowns of trust could destroy it.

I could see a taxonomy of trusts identifying negative and positive aspects to trust in each embedded context to which a form of trust applies, but I suppose the simple answer to the conundrum is that we should selectively, critically, and appropriately apply trust/mistrust. Selectively, in that we eschew a naive mistrust of everything and accept that trust is sometimes both good and necessary. Critically, in that when we do apply mistrust, we do so in accordance with reason. Our mistrust should be warranted. And appropriately, in that we apply mistrust of the right degree, of the right scope, and at the right level.

Degree e.g. We distrust a mainstream media outlet and are warranted in doing so, does that mean we should dismiss everything they say tout court as "Fake news"? Not necessarily.

Scope e.g. We distrust a mainstream media outlet and are warranted in doing so, does that mean we should dismiss all msm outlets? Again, not necessarily, we first need a separate warrant and even if we get one, it's back to the degree question.

Level e.g. We distrust the political world, so should we withdraw from the social and cultural too. Not necessarily. The degree and scope of warranted mistrust may be very different at each level.

And so on.

Tl;dr As good as it is to be skeptical of our social and interpersonal environment, getting too skeptical can fuck things up an' shit.

A dodge and a diversion. I'm done.

"More than 5,000 Brazilians have lost their lives to the coronavirus – even more people than in China, if its official statistics are to be believed.

But on Tuesday night Brazil’s president shrugged off the news. “So what?” Jair Bolsonaro told reporters when asked about the record 474 deaths that day."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/so-what-bolsonaro-shrugs-off-brazil-rising-coronavirus-death-toll

Nice.

For future reference, CNN has a similar score to the Washington Free Beacon, which I guess means it’s an unreliable source. — NOS4A2

For opinion, without doubt; it's the Dem TV channel. For pure news, the report says:

"However, news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks."

And it's news not opinion we're discussing. Having said that, it got a worse score than I expected and I wouldn't have a problem re-sourcing if someone questioned my CNN article.

But Yahoo has picked up the story. — NOS4A2

:up:

I'm not making a judgement on the story, I'm making a judgement on the source. We all have limited time here. Just provide a reliable source. If the story is true, that shouldn't be a problem.

Simple version:

An argument cannot be considered valid or invalid nor a claim true or false purely on the basis of its source. [Genetic Fallacy]

Information can (and should be) considered more or less reliable depending on its source.

(The drunk / right wing rag could be right but it's legitimate to demand a more reliable source.)



Hard to be both completely wrong and a complete hypocrite at the same time, but he's managed it

No, it's not, because the claim is not that the information is false but that it's unreliable and that relates to who is providing it. It's why, for example, we are likely to accept a doctor's diagnosis that a mole we have is cancerous and reject a random drunk's. Of course, the drunk might accuse us of fallacious thinking, but he is a moron who knows no more about philosophy than he does about medicine, so why should we listen to him?

The answer is in my post. You don't get to post stuff from clearly biased sites with a consistent history of spreading misinformation and expect people to waste their time on it. Life's too short. If there's anything true in that story, it should be available from a reasonably reliable news outlet. Go find a reliable source if you want to be taken seriously.

Nothing like the old "fake news"-super-hypocrisy-trap to concentrate a mind.

Its not an argument that's being dismissed here, it's the reliability of the information. A simple distinction. That's why we don't credit stuff from, for example, conspiracy sites. Some of it could be true, but the onus is on the poster of the information to use an acceptable source. If that were not true, every examiner of an academic paper would be guilty of the genetic fallacy for directing their students to use academic sources and for rejecting information that did not come from these sources. We don't require academic sources here, but we do require minimally credible ones. Yours was not.

There's the quote.

My point is that Kavanaugh is revealed as the scum he is, not because as a boy he did something stupid, but because as a man he's a liar, and the lies matter. — tim wood

I'm saying you need to apply the same to Biden if he's guilty.

Doesn't really address the specific point I was making. You called Kavanaugh "scum" because he lied (in your view) about the assault, not for anything else in his character. This has nothing to do with Trump.

This is the reason the liberal media isn't covering this. It's hard them to come to terms with it. — frank

Yep.



If I'm inconsistent you can feel free to point it out, especially if you're willing to quote me. Meantime, take a chill pill. Nobody needs to have a coronary over this.

Kindly old Irish people can turn out to be drunken bastards. — frank

Tell me about it. :lol:

The latter being more dangerous, really. — StreetlightX

As with Obama, personality trumps substance.

I dislike both Biden and Trump regardless of whether these latest allegations are true. And the reasons for my respective dislike are fairly distinct, so yes I can tell the difference. No argument there. My point to you is that if you are not consistent in terms of Biden lying about this (if he is) as opposed to Kavanaugh then you are not credible. That's a fair point isn't it?

Anyway, I'm done with making that point. We can move on.

I have nothing but the greatest of respect for women.. — Frank Apisa

Nobody respects women more than me. — Trump

I've been referring to the way you talk about women, nothing else. In that respect, you two are twins even in your excuses.

You said Kavanaugh was, and I quote, "scum" because he, in your opinion, lied about what happened with his accuser. Biden has said these accusations are false. If they are true, you agree he is also "scum"?