It's really just a fever that gets as high as 102 but then drops back to normal. It's not terrible, but I wouldn't recommend it. The weird dreams are kinda cool though.

I think Trump said he could pardon himself. All he's got to do is say "pardon me" and he's absolved from any crime.

in 2004, and in its vast bibliography. So-called social scientists don't read any of this, because it's "conspiracy theory", right? — Rafaella Leon

Not sure what they read, but I'm shivering under a bunch of blankets right now waiting for this conspiracy covid fever to pass.

Sure. If I own a newspaper I can demand how it's run. But your original analogy was that of a consumer. I'm just not seeing it. — Benkei

There was a time when aspiring journalists took courses in journalistic ethics and were expected to adhere to them as part of the industry standard. The enforcement was voluntary before and it seemed to work, so we were in a position where we could expect truth to be the goal of reporting. I realize that the First Amendment will serve as a barrier against direct enforcement, but I'm not convinced it cannot be enforced at all, which is what I see with the responsible owners of mass media doing (at least in the example I referenced).

I retired from activism when it became clear to me that nothing substantial is going to happen with nuclear weapons until after the next detonation. — Hippyhead

I do admire the quit you have in you.

es, but that's libel law. If my car doesn't start as a purchaser I have rights. If I buy a paper and it's filled with lies, what exactly is the action I can bring? That it isn't fit for purpose? And the obvious defense would be freedom of speech. — Benkei

Here's one means of enforcement:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/487247

So, we should sue Fox News for pretending to offer fair and balanced news? Aren't they going to say "free speech" and tell you to fuck off? — Benkei

Dominion software got them to make a complete retraction.

Yes, it's easy for you to say that standards have worked in the past, but until you take a good look at what was going on in the past, that statement is rather doubtful because you don't consider how the standards were enforced. For most of those 1000 years the standards were strictly dictated by The Church, and if you would have stepped out of line, or even perceived to have possibly stepped out of line, you'd be subjected to The Inquisition. — Metaphysician Undercover

We don't need to go back that far. Up until the 1990s, mass media was limited to very few people and journalistic ethics were self enforced.

You think we should go back to how it was hundreds of years ago? — Metaphysician Undercover

That conclusion cannot be inferred from anything I've said. What I indicated was that there have been editorial standards for over 1000 years, and there's no reason to abandon standards entirely simply because mass media is now generally available to the public.

I'm not suggesting there be some subjective, whimsical approach to determining what is worthy of publication. Journalistic ethics can be arrived at and they ought be enforced if we wish for our journalism to be ethical. If, on the other hand, we want to provide a platform for those who scream the loudest or who have the most provocative things to say, we can continue forward with what we're doing.

If we can demand that the medicine we take will cure us, that the cars we purchase start when we turn the key, that our computers properly link us to the internet, then we should similarly be able to expect the news reports we read to reflect what actually occurred. It's not clear to me why mass media should be an exception and should get a pass and be permitted to defraud those who consume those products with impunity.

Those celebrating the censorship of the right - the mass shut-down of social media accounts and the restricted access to to entire social media platforms like Parler - need to be very, very, careful what they wish for — StreetlightX

Free speech has never encompassed the right to say whatever you wish at my dinner table, nor does it include the right to speak with impunity.

In any event, the power of mass media has always rested in the hands of the few. Historically, you first must have had a printing press, then the ability to print large scale newspapers and fliers, then access to the radio waves, then to the television waves and then to cable and such. Because market entry was difficult, the owners generally held to an ethic to be truthful, at least in the West.

This modern problem of giving every Tom, Dick, and Harry access to mass media via Twitter, Facebook and the like is something that must now be grappled with. The solution, as is now evident, is not to allow a free for all. I have no problem with the owners of mass media doing as they always had in the past: publishing only that which meets proper editorial standards. Such worked for probably 1000 years prior to tweets and insta posts.

Yes, attempting to hang Mike Pence is pretty much the exact equivalent of calling for racial justice. :brow: — Baden

There are certainly critical distinctions between the Trumpers and the BLM protesters, but there is a similarity often overlooked, and that is that both comprise a marginalized underclass, even if the Trumpers don't realize the source of their anger and even if they are members of the majority race.

Trump insurrectionist being shot for those who want to debate it. Viewer discretion advised. — Baden

From the clip, she appeared not to be threatening anyone's life, so it seems unjustified, but maybe there's more to this.

Your thoughts?

seems like the only two plausible outcomes are that Republicans let their party be completely consumed by insane Trumpers, or else the party splits. In either case the standard Republicans lose, but if they split the party the insane Trumpers lose too. I guess it comes down to whether it’s better to be effectively an undead zombie party ruining everything you might have once cared for, or just a dead party. — Pfhorrest

I predict the Democrats will take this great opportunity while their opponent is crippled to do something stupid enough to unite and energize the Republicans. Sunrise, sunset.

didn't believe him of course because cmon. But who knows? — 8livesleft

Nah. No conspiracy theory here. Things are as they appear.

What if Jesus was just like that guy with the horn hat? Just totally nuts? — frank

The more important question is whether the horn hat man is the messiah.

Can we just take a moment to reflect on the fact that the "coup attempt" was a rational conclusion from Trump and the GOP's politics, that it was egged on by Trump and the GOP, that Trump is still egging it on, and only at the last second when GOP members realised the optics of the coup attempt were sufficiently bad did they back out? — fdrake

My take throughout this process was that the vast majority of Republicans stood by Trump in order to maintain party unity and to avoid his vicious response to disloyalty. The hope, I think, was to allow the clock to run out with his baseless protests and conspiracy theories about the election. Despite making all his claims, no Republican effort meaningfully attempted to overturn the election. No Republican Governor, Secretary of State, election board, or legislature actually failed to certify their election results, and no Republican or even Trump appointed judge accepted his arguments. Most notably, in Georgia, Republicans took a beating from Trump for their disloyalty because it appears that Trump thought the very Republican controlled state was his best bet in decertifying results. Up to the last minute, it looked like McConnell would be able to control the Republican Senators from signing on to the objections to the election, but he was not able to. In any event, no one actually thought the objection to the Electoral College votes in Congress would result in any change to the final election result.

As to whether the Republicans were cowards, fearful of doing the right thing, they certainly were. As to whether the rank and file actually believed the Trump nonsense, I doubt it. As to whether the Republicans can now remove themselves from Trump now that he has revealed too clearly what and who he actually is, yes. And that, as I said above, is the positive takeaway here. I don't see the rank and file GOP as much as co-conspirators in attempting to steal Biden's legitimate win, but as pathetic cowards fearful of losing their power who knew better.

I see yesterday as a great day for the Republican party. It signals the end to the nightmare that is Trump. Mainstream Republicans can now safely distance themselves from him instead of being forced into cowardly acquiescence. Yesterday was not Normandy, but Appomattox.

What about this part? I’m not sure where you stand. — Brett

I mean that it's ridiculous that a US president can't make comments on a website that are not appropriate enough for publication so they have to moderate him.

I can see though how my comment might have been ambiguous.

What do you mean? — Brett

That Trump is banned here.

His since deleted tweet: — Michael

Twitter is considering a permanent ban. The President of the US is being moderated and banned on a website. How ridiculous is that.

I vote for a preemptive ban here. He's going to be looking for a new home to post, and I want to be proactive.

All that powerful, revolutionary energy. Channelled into defending a plutocrat like Trump. What an utter waste. — StreetlightX

It's such an interesting phenomenon, the influence of leadership and the cult like behavior that follows. I've got to assume these are just regular folks who go to work everyday and come home and hang out with their friends and family. They convince themselves they're fighting for a higher purpose and not just to protect Trump, their messiah. Do they not see just see the same brash, disrespectful dumbass that I see?

This billionaire buffoon stirs up the underclass into believing their will was subverted, their election stolen, and now their guns and way of life will be taken away. I do think they really believe this and they'll speak proudly to their grandkids about how they fought for freedom like a true patriot.

On the positive side the GOP is totally fucked now. :party: (Sorry Hanover, you know I'm right). — Baden

And when did getting totally fucked become a bad thing?

Now you sound like BLM supporters in the summer when explaining the looting. — ssu

I'm explaining why watching looters pisses people off, but I'm not suggesting a moral equivalence, nor am I suggesting that it's all subjective, as if some looters aren't objectively right and others wrong.

Really? When was the last time the US Capitol Building was stormed by armed insurrectionists stopping the certification of Electoral College votes? Perhaps you could jog my memory? — Wayfarer

If you're just saying that this is the worst example of protestors acting out at the capital, then maybe it is. I don't know. But if you're saying this is the worst example of violent behavior against the US government, I'm saying it's not.

People need to be prosecuted over this. I don’t recall a worse spectacle in American politics than seeing brawling mobs smashing windows of the Capitol building and rampaging through it. Trumpism is showing its true colours, as if it weren’t already abundantly obvious. — Wayfarer

Oh come now, there's been far worse behavior, but that's not to say that this behavior isn't especially bad. The streets burn every time there is any feeling of unfairness, real or perceived. Everyone always feels justified when they riot. What you're experiencing is how a riot looks when you find the rioters entirely unjustified.

I'm wondering how the 2 hour debate rule works. If a protestor comes in and disrupts everything for an hour or so, are the congressmen left with just a few short minutes to argue their bullshit, or does a guy come in with a digital clock like in soccer and let the crowd know how much time has been added due to delays during the game.

The $2,000 check was Trump's idea as I recall.

So, can we blame these losses on Trump? Loeffler's apparent insider trading? Perdue's anti-semitic gaffs and ridicule of Harris? Or is it thanks to Democratic organising in Georgia this time around with great voter turn out? — Benkei

It's the mystical power of comeuppance that corrects stupidity and injustice in the cosmos.

Actually I think that it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that chess software can more or less simulate emotion. In my recently updated chess.con app, for example, they’ve added ‘personalities’ to the computer matches. Some of them are more aggressive than others or display varying combination (see list of aesthetic factors in my previous post) styles. — praxis

Those programmed in personalities might make for a more interesting game, but not a stronger one.

I'm stating the obvious here. If you name your calculator George and program it to have a happy go lucky personality and to ask you about your day, it's worth as a calculator will still only be measured by how well it adds and subtracts.

Obviously if he thinks he won, he wants to find the missing votes, like you would if you lost some dollars you would want to find the missing money. Different from asking to forge money or manufacture votes. — FreeEmotion

If you're trying to contextualize this so that we can better understand the meaning of the word "find," you have to consider the whole context, not just what Trump's personal belief was about the validity of the election (and who knows what that really is). The role of the Secretary of State is to count the votes and to declare a winner, regardless of who that might be. Obviously there are times when the party of the Secretary of State will not be the party of the person who wins a given election, but that doesn't change the charge of the SoS. That is to say, the role of the SoS isn't to go out and "find" votes for a particular candidate like he's on an Easter egg hunt. What he is to do is count the votes and be sure the election was valid, which he did. In this case, the SoS counted the votes 3 times, once on election night, then he conducted a hand count, and then he did an electronic recount, and then he certified the election.

And to further contextualize this, Trump knew very well when he spoke to Raffensperger that Raffensperger did not believe the election to be stolen, so Trump knew very well that Raffensperger would not have accepted such a strained definition of "find" when Trump asked him to find more votes. That is to say, even if Trump truly believed votes were stolen and then stuffed into some nook and cranny, he had no reason to believe that Raffensperger would take the term "find" to be anything other than a euphemism for the term "fabricate." It makes sense that one would use a term how they expect the listener to understand it, unless Trump only meant to be talking to himself.

And to further contextualize this, within the same conversation, Trump told Raffensperger how mad Georgians were about this result and there was the allusion to criminal prosecution for some unknown sort of crime if additional votes weren't found. What this means is that we have the most powerful man in the world (although his power is fading fast) telling a local SoS to locate ballots that will swing the state's election in his favor, and if the votes aren't found, Raffensperger will lose his next election and will then be off to jail.

That's what happened. You can fully support Trump if you want to, but trying to cast the conversation between Trump and Raffensperger as an innocuous call to the lost and found department in search of the votes Trump thinks might have been left at the booth at the diner is pretty much nonsense.

Great credit to Raffensperger for not bending to someone who can destroy his career.

The good news is that we have an honest politician. The bad news is that simple honesty is an act of heroism.

"Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong.”

Is it possible to be overly rational in chess? — Hrvoje

Chess software doesn't program in emotion, so I think the way to win is entirely through rationality.

Maybe this has something to do with God, but I'm staying in this 1800s inn right now, and I just got this weird haunted feeling (known as the "heebie jeebies"). I looked up the inn online, and it turns out the inn is a known haunted inn and, get this, my room is the one known to be haunted!

Why does the universe need to be created? Why couldn't it have always existed? — 8livesleft

That's true, and, just to cover all logical possibilities, it's possible that there is a creator, but his role was limited to bringing order to the eternally pre-existent chaos. Not every religion believes the creator created the universe ex nihlio, the Mormons for example.

Let's study this very carefully. There's "thinking", there's "Descartes", and then there's Descartes' "I" in "I think therefore, I am". To what does the "I" in Descartes' argument refer to? Surely, it refers to the thinker who's allegedly thinking but...if thought waves are real, no one, let alone Descartes, is actually thinking. If there's no thinking, there's no thinker and if there's no thinker then it becomes impossible for Descartes to identify himself with a thinker as a thinker doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

Descartes wouldn't have argued there were "thought waves" because a wave implies physicality, and thought was non-physical in his dualistic system. Regardless, though, it is entirely irrelevant what thought is composed of and what it means to be physical and non-physical. Descartes did something when he doubted, and that something, whatever it was, meant something happened. That's all the cogito proves.

I'm sorry about repeating this part of my argument but it seems it hasn't sunk in. Doubting is thinking but if thought waves are real, there's no such thing as thinking and so there can't be a thinker and Descartes' self is, by all accounts, the thinker. Nobody is actively thinking in this scenario, everyone's just passively receiving thought wave signals that are traveling through space. — TheMadFool

Regardless of how you define "thinking," and regardless of whether Descartes is actually thinking, he most certainly thinks he thinks.

Literally millions of innocent souls suffered this horrible fate, or were physically destroyed because they refused to conform to statist demands. — charles ferraro

You're really going to need to establish a meaningful link between government schools and concentration camps and gulags. At this point, I have no idea what you're talking about. Sometimes destruction comes to a group based upon genetics and sometimes lack of allegiance to the dictator, but none of that has anything to do with schooling. I'd also point out that every state in the nation has government run high schools and universities, with every single university offering liberal arts degrees in the most obscure of fields. The question therefore isn't whether we ought pay for these degrees from the public funds. It's how much we wish to pay. Since the debate is how much, not whether, no one truly believes liberal arts degrees are the first step toward the gas chambers. I seriously doubt you even think that, but it does make for a good rant. Or not.

I have this oddball theory [sorry Banno] that I want to throw out there just in case people find it worth exploring. — TheMadFool

Nothing you've said creates a problem for Descartes. You cannot doubt you are doubting.

History teaches us, over and over again, to beware precisely those totalitarian leaders and "PROFESSORS" who know absolutely how to distinguish the "good" from the "bad" man!!!!!!! — charles ferraro

You drone on about how formal education that provides no economic utility is of no value and then explain how it really is nothing more than is a liberal indoctrination process, but then you take a sudden left turn from all this right handed thinking and start explaining how important it is we be aware of such things as history.

How do I make money learning history, and why all of a sudden do you argue the virtues of a well rounded education, as if now you think knowledge generally is necessary for good citizenship?

In the US, we fully fund all education through high school without regard to the direct economic value of the subject. You are required to take world history with the full understanding you'll not need any of that knowledge when you eventually become employed. There is no principled distinction between high school and college. It's just an arbitrary distinction drawn for arbitrary reasons. My point being that there is no reason to limit college education to utility if we've already conceded education shouldn't be limited by utility in K to 12. If 17 year olds can benefit from English Literature, so can 20 year olds.

The only justification for the government to pay for 12 years of education and not 16 is because it costs more for 16 and the government believes 12 years of education is good enough for society. That prevailing justification is likely outdated.

I'd submit that society suffers terribly from an undereducated public, and it's a true tragedy for someone to be deprived of his full intellectual development. To limit one's education deprives him of his full personhood.

And so it's a matter of money and priority. We fund roads without flinching, but not higher education, but really there's nothing conservative about limiting public education to 12 years and liberal about funding 16 years. It's just a matter of how many lanes you want on the highway and how many grades you want in the school.