Folks interacting with nos4 should understand he is a liar and a troll. He is a waste of time and effort.

NOS got it wrong.... — ssu

Maybe he did. Or he may have known the truth. I think the truth of the matter with nos4 is that truth does not matter to him. I've tried to call him on his lies, but when pressed he just disappears. We'll see how he does this time.

.

Schwarzkopf line “Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion.”. — NOS4A2

Don't know the context. Usually the criticism of French militarism is based on WW2. But the problem with that is that the critics are either completely ignorant of realities of the time, or deliberately overlook it for vicious reasons.

IN 1940, France was basically a rural society of about 40M people. Against them was a highly industrialized, rearmed, and hostile Germany of almost 90M. In other words, no contest. During the war, French resistance was about as effective and courageous as it could be.

I was worried that Goldberg might not be lying this time, — NOS4A2

Ok, when did Goldberg ever lie? The neat thing about calling the lie is that categorically someone is lying. It's either you or him. Make your case!

Being pro-Israel automatically disqualifies anyone from having any opinion on anything whatsoever. — Benkei

Good thing in the lounge people can display the full spectrum of their stupidity. Actually, I'm obliged to think you both know better and think better.

If 1200 of your people were massacred a few years ago.... — BitconnectCarlos

This I get. But what does Trump have to do with it? As to Palestinians, what do you suppose - or maybe you know - what the average Palestinian thinks about the last few years?

:100: :up:

I don’t consider the words of Jeffry Goldberg to be evidence. — NOS4A2

You're obviously not paying attention to congressional hearings. Except I think you're just plain lying. I'm sure you know the truth of the matter, as well as any of us, but being a troll the truth is irrelevant to you.

You really know nothing about the man, do you. And clearly you know little or nothing about America, because only ignorance on that topic could ground any illusion that he is for America.

Because he deports those who come here on visas and spit in the face of the country that welcomes in them. — BitconnectCarlos

If only. He pays ample lip-service to the idea, but he is indiscriminate in his targets. And to be sure, the overwhelming record is that immigrants do not spit in the face of anything American.

like him because he's serious about cutting waste and challenges unaccountable corrupt organizations. — BitconnectCarlos

What a fool you are! He has made it clear that neither he nor his loyal enablers know what they're doing - and he has gone to great lengths to fire those that do!

I like that he's serious about border security, unlike the Democrats. — BitconnectCarlos

That's right! He wanted to build a wall, and did not. Which is just as well because walls don't work, and of course Mexico was never going to pay for it anyway. He doesn't know about border security; he does not even know what border security is! And remember it was he who got the Republicans to torpedo a bi-partisan border bill during Biden's term, because he did not want Biden to get any credit or to accomplish anything worthwhile.

He seems to correctly recognize that the main maladies of today's day and age are lawlessness, social and moral confusion, and Islamic fundamentalism. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, excepting Islamic fundamentalism, he's a poster example for lawlessness and social and moral chaos. Any pussies in your family anyone can grab? Btw, ask yourself why he acts as he does: who's agenda is he serving?

Like what you like, but understand that to be ignorantly foolish is just to be a fool! And wrt Trump and everything about him, you are that!

Edit: And bit-coin is a Ponzi scheme - a con, a grift. Of course he'd be for that!

Judging from the Bible, women were property falling under the protection of their owner, although by no means necessarily protected from him. From Herodotus stories of places where women were more independent. And of course the Amazons. Ancient American history suggests that women were not well-treated in ancient American civilizations. And the modern record is atrocious, with estimates of one quarter to one half of all women having been subject to some sexual assault. My own opinion is that figure is closer to 100%.

The EU has a soy meltdown because they have to fund their own defense. It’s like an unweaned child who never learns to take care of themselves, and when finally set free to stand on their own feet, they spin around and spite their parents. They say the US is untrustworthy, when they have been living off the efforts of the American taxpayer. — NOS4A2

There's so much wrong with this it tires me just to read it. It seems, nos4, you never met a lie you didn't like, or a fact you could abide, or a truth you can endure. There is in what you write certainly neither fact nor truth, and an impressive number of lies.

I'm pointing towards a political climate that has already resulted in two assassination attempts on Trump — Tzeentch

Ever occur to you that maybe Trump himself had something to do with that? I cannot think of any assassination or attempt that was the result of "political climate." They were all the result of the screwed-up thinking of the individual(s). But Trump has hurt and injured thousands of people, and there is zero doubt in my mind that he is directly responsible for deaths not otherwise happening. And if any of those victims assassinated Trump or tried to, who could say that was not justice itself!

You and nos4 defend Trump seemingly in favor of him and at the expense of everything else. Why? Where is your sense of proportion, reason, compassion, empathy, justice? If some person came to your house and acted like Trump, would you fete and favour and celebrate him? Of course not, one hopes! So why him?

The International System of Human Rights must not have a duty holder because the latter would be dangerous for the integrity of the State and its enforcement of law and its legislative capabilities. — Ludovico Lalli

And as necessary, should be.

When necessary, we hope so.

It's pretty clear that Trump is a disgusting, disturbed, and dangerous individual. As subject matter, most of us encounter Trump-like people in our lives. I myself do not know how to deal with them, other than to run away. Has anyone here had any sort of success, and what did they do and how did they do it?

our continued existence — TiredThinker

How about telling us what you mean by "our" - or "my" if you want to substitute - and as well "continued" and "existence." In this context, I think that work and effort needed. Or maybe more simply, if existence/ing as a being is the sum of us, and that ended, then what could be left of what isn't any more?

In a similar way to the way that Achilles cannot catch up to the tortoise, the tortoise also cannot actually reach the finish line. To reach the finish line, the tortoise must first cross half the distance to it, then half the remaining distance, then half of the remaining distance again, and onward infinitely. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not really a contribution to the discussion, but I think this expression of MU's is simple, elegant, and final.

If gentle reader buys Zeno's setup, he must then buy MU's conclusion. Of course Achilleus passes the tortoise and both achieve the finish line. MU, then, illuminating that the difficulty is not so much in the problem, as with some particular, but with the problem, as a whole.

I don't know about Switzerland, but I think you're referring to small-town small-d democracy. The US, of course, is representative government; we get to vote for most* of our representatives. As to any European medieval democracies, I cannot think of any, nor do I suppose there were any. I'll accept correction. I don't think I'm addressing your OP directly, but if the points are about democracies, it's nice to know if they are in fact democracies.

Edit. *Or depending on how you count it, maybe very, very few of our representatives.

So you see, I did discuss it, just not directly point to it... but fact is, there wasn't a wrong interpretation in that other than you thinking you had me on a wrong interpretation... — DifferentiatingEgg

Indeed you did, in your takedown of AS in the other thread. Afaik you were right, nor did I think you were wrong. Maybe read a little better?

Be good enough to give us your working definition of "democracy."

The very few times that Nietzsche declares "there are no facts" are indeed within Aphorisms that detail very specifically what Nietzsche is determining that there are no facts about... — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't know about N's use for the word "fact," but in another thread you produced a quote that was mistranslated with the word "fact" and that did not in fact contain that word. The point here being that "fact" and "true" are two different words referring to different things - notwithstanding that often they're used as if interchangeable. Facts are historical. And thus there is no such thing as a fact. And as such, absolutely a matter of interpretation. N appears to have been smart enough not to use the word "fact" inappropriately or in error.

I second. Some were saved when I thought I'd deleted them. Now to delete I erase and then type a period and return. The period is saved but at least the text is gone.

I would still be pro-Trump. — BitconnectCarlos

Why? How?

.

The Tokyo convention is about crimes committed in flight. — NOS4A2

And given the order, the flight itself was a crime. You, however, are somehow suggesting that absent a crime, the flight is not under any jurisdiction. And were that true, how could there be any crime on a flight - crime according to whom, what law, what jurisdiction?

according to the brilliant lawyer Tim Woods! — NOS4A2

More s**t from TPF's premier purveyor. Not "according" to me. But nos4 doesn't care about truth or facts.

“Defy a court order”. They were already out of the country, where no American judge has jurisdiction. — NOS4A2

"When a plane is over the ocean, it is generally under the jurisdiction of the country where the aircraft is registered, as per the Tokyo Convention, unless the crime is of such nature that a different country's jurisdiction applies." Nos4 full of s**t again, as usual.

It seems to me that the executive branch of the US government is (now, at the very least) a criminal enterprise, and all participants subject to RICO prosecution. That's interesting, and could become very interesting.

Sounds like hinge propositions, aka absolute presuppositions. As such approximately (at least) 100-year-old ideas from Wittgenstein and Collingwood respectively.

no. I'm not naming "the universe". I'm naming two categories of systems. One is named determinism. One is named indeterminism. — flannel jesus

The universe being indeterministic doesn't seem to give any more room for free will than if it were deterministic. — flannel jesus

Both the hard and soft determinists endorse determinism, which is the view that all events (including human choices) are causally determined (necessitated) by antecedent conditions.

These will do as support for what I think you said. But if you do not mean the U, what do you mean? (And as to quantum influences, I agree they do not appear relevant to this topic.)

And while it is fashionably modern to be dismissive of many of his (Kant's) ideas, at close look, they still hold!
— tim wood
Such as? :chin: — 180 Proof

That knowledge-of is a construct of mind.

It calls to mind an observation I think from Carl Sagan, but I am not able to verify, "Astronomers study telescopes and cosmologists study the minds of astronomers." I take this to be true, although not practically useful. Just as regarding knowledge-of in a Kantian way is true, but not-so-useful.

Sarah and Paul, — flannel jesus

Sure, for Sarah and Paul. As a Venn diagram there would be the S circle and the P circle and a perhaps small area of intersection that represents their skills at photography. But you're referring to the universe. If "Paul" is your name for the universe, and also "Sarah" is your name for the universe, then Sarah is the same as Paul. To be different there would have to be some part of the universe that is not part of the universe. Do you begin to see your problem?

If there are two things, and no significant difference between them, are they not wrt to whatever is significant, the same?

If there is only one thing, certainly it is identical with itself without any differences at all significant or no. Why give it two names, especially that imply difference?

You say the U is D. You say that there is no significant difference between D and non-D. Which is to say that wrt whatever is significant they are the same. You have then two names for the same thing, or two things with the same name, D and non-D. And that is strange usage.

Isn't non-D. Maybe you can't write clearly. — flannel jesus

You misquote.

What exactly is your purpose on this topic? It appears to me you're interested in fencing, but not any constructive discussion.

Sweet Jesus! You actually cannot read! Or you're just having your own private joke. But you're wasting my time.

What is Kant's one great idea? — Gregory

I think it was his effort to cure the then contemporary understanding of science of certain flaws in its foundations. In succeeding he made surprising discoveries, the consequences and implications of which he followed out at length. And while it is fashionably modern to be dismissive of many of his ideas, at close look, they still hold!

To say that something is - D - and at the same time isn't - non-D - is what I call strange. Or odd, or illogical, or wrong, or suspicious. But on its face bad form, unless you or someone habilitates the idea.

no significant difference, in my opinion, between the claim that this universe is deterministic, and the claim that this world is indeterministic. — flannel jesus

This figures in another thread. I'll ask here: In terms of descriptions of the world, are deterministic (D) and indeterministic (non-D) together exhaustive of all possibilities?

To say there is no significant difference between D and non-D is to say that in every significant way they are the same thing - that seems to me a strange conclusion.

So metaphysics is not about facts... — Banno

Oh, I see, that bit where some folk restrict facts to observations. So it's not a fact that 2+2=4, or that the bishop stays on her own colour in chess. — Banno

Surprised to see you so confused, Banno. 2+2=4 is both a proposition (i.e., true or false) and absolute presupposition. It's true, but never a fact, except for people who do not distinguish between truth and facts. As to bishops, it seems that's a truth too; that bishops stay on their own colour is certainly not a fact - assuming by "fact" you mean necessarily so.

Another thing about facts: they're always historical. That something is a fact means that the something happened - and the happening adequately attested.

Determinism is stupid. If you disagree, that's just the way it has to be. — Hanover

:up: :yum:

Twice and more than twice I have asked you direct questions which you have ignored. No good reason can be given for those evasions, other that you're playing games and not interested in your own topic. The floor is all yours.