Russell's paradox is no problem since I don't talk about the set of everything, but the set of everything that exists. That's a huge difference. — Pippen

You fail to understand the argument. Surely no set contains anything that doesn't exist. What could that even mean?

I also wonder if my proof could just start to define Nothingness as just the empty set. Why bother? — Pippen

It would be a tighter argument since I couldn't so easily throw Russell's paradox at it. Just start with the empty set. But where did that come from? As I already noted, if there's a universe that is empty except that it contains the empty set, well then the universe has something in it. The empty set has no members, but it is itself a thing. It's like a grocery bag before you put in your groceries. It's an empty bag, but it's still a bag.

It's an interesting question in mathematics. We write down the rules of set theory, but how do we know that any sets exist? There's only one axiom that says a set exists, and that is the axiom of infinity. The axiom of infinity says that there exists a set that contains the empty set; AND whenever it contains a set X, it also contains X U {X}. That's essentially the principle of mathematical induction, and it gives us all the counting numbers.

But where did the empty set come from? One story I've heard is that the underlying laws of logic include the law of identity, which says not only that a thing is equal to itself; but that also there is at least one thing. That's one theory.

Another theory is that set theory secretly includes an axiom that posits the existence of the empty set.

It's not an important question, but it is a little bit of a puzzler. Most people think the axiom of infinity gives us a set, and that given one set we can form the empty set. But the axiom of infinity references the empty set so that's not entirely satisfactory. Basically nobody cares about this much. We can always say, "Ok there's at least one set" to end that conversation.

Your argument has a problem. If you require the empty set, where did it come from? You may well have an empty universe. But if you do, it can't contain the empty set. Because then the universe is not empty!

But your argument is definitely better without starting by assuming a set of everything, which provably doesn't exist.

Here's a question for you. How does a car move? It sits all night with velocity zero. Then at some instant of time, it has nonzero velocity. This is a commonplace occurrence that we see every day. But it's very mysterious. Note that this is not Zeno's paradox, at least not directly. It's just the question of how velocity can be zero at one instant and nonzero at a later instant. Perhaps universes come into existence the same way. God steps on the accelerator.

1. We define (N)othing as the complement of the set of anything (that exists), so N = ∅. — Pippen

Well your proof is busted there as Russell's paradox shows that there is no set of all sets. So there is no "set of anything," by which I understand you to mean the set of everything. There is no set of everything. If there was we could form its subset defined by the set of everything that's not a member of itself. That subset both is and isn't a member of itself. Contradiction, hence there is no set of all sets, hence no set of "everything" and no set of "anything that exists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

DOA on line 1.

As a second objection, note that the empty set is not nothing. The empty set is a particular set. If you have a universe that contains the empty set, then that universe is not empty. It contains the empty set. The empty set is a thing. It's a particular set. It's not nothing.

Besides (objection 3) if something can't come from nothing, where did all this stuff come from? If it didn't come from nothing, then it was always here. That seems equally untenable. Unless you're William Lane Craig and you think this proves that God did it. Because anything that "begins to exist" must have a cause; hence God must have always existed. Yeah I know it sounds like bs, but a lot of people take Craig seriously.

In general, the only immigration restrictions I'd have, anywhere in the world, would be that I'm okay with screening for wanted criminals or people with significant associations with known terrorists. — Terrapin Station

Ok! That's a direct answer. Not from @Tim Wood whom I originally directed the question to. But it's a response. You would say a wall is wrong, because you don't want strong borders. Which is perfectly fine, it's a coherent position that goes beyond, "Trump is a liar therefore we don't need a wall." That's what @Tim Wood wrote and it's the point I challenged him on.

But ok, weak semi-open borders. Screen for criminals. Consider this not-so-hypothetical. An adult shows up at the border with a child. They have no paperwork. The adult says, "This is my kid." You are a US customs agent. You have two choices:

* Let them into the country. Oops, you just turned a child over to a trafficker. Think it can't happen? Obama did it a lot, to avoid the bad optics of "separating families." From the WaPo, hardly a right wing rag I hope you'll agree. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-administration-placed-children-with-human-traffickers-report-says/2016/01/28/39465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

* Or, detain the adult and the kid separately for a few weeks until you can determine the truth of the matter via DNA or perhaps an inquiry to their claimed home country for some paperwork. That sounds sensible. But now your political opponents start screeching about "ripping babies from their mothers' arms," and everyone hates you.

So, what do you do when and adult and a kid show up with no paperwork? Let the adult into the country with the child, no questions asked? Or detain them separately till you can determine whether that's a family or a trafficker with their victim?

I hope you don't think this is a hypothetical. It happens every day. Obama looked at the political optics and kept the children with their traffickers, repeatedly. Trump chose to try to verify the claims and got excoriated by the left.

What do you think?

Great, someone who knows. What is the problem at the Southern Border? — tim wood

Tim, you said there's no need for a wall. So do you think there's a need for a fence? What do you want to do about the existing 600 miles of fence? Tear some or all of it down? Add more as long as it's a fence and not a wall? Is this a Trump-bashing thread or a discussion of US-Mexico border policy, a situation that goes back to the Bracero program of the 1930's? Do you think there should be any international borders at all? After all, some people are one-worlders and don't believe in borders. When you say there's no need for a wall, is that what you mean? Do you think having 12-20 million people living in the shadows in the US is a good idea? Do you favor intelligent immigration reform? Or just Trump-bashing?

So, your claim now is that the Dems went from supporting a wall and gassing and caging immigrants just as much as (or more than) Trump did, to being in favour of no border security at all, i.e. just opening the border and letting everyone in. Because they don't like Trump... — Baden

My original response was to @tim wood. He went on a diatribe against Trump then said there was no reason for the wall.

Now please note that I am not a partisan. I despise both major parties deeply. I believe the worst the right says about the left; and the worst the left says about the right. So if you read my posts throught a partisan lens, you are bound to misunderstand me.

My point to @Tim Wood would be this: Anyone who thinks the ongoing crisis on the souther border is Trump's fault hasn't been paying attention. In fact it's the Democrats who have been making things much worse; by TALKING compassionately about the downtrodden; but then, not wanting to be branded "soft on border security," they vote for things like the Secure Fence act to shut up the right. Then Obama comes in and deports record numbers of Mexican and central American immigrants and handles in a very cruel and incompetent manner the flood of central Americans in 2014.

And then Trump shows up and says the word wall -- which I happen to agree is simply awful; I oppose Trump's border rhetoric -- but the hypocrisy from the left is just disgraceful. In fact a lot of the moral posturing from the left is exactly because deep down they KNOW that Hillary and Biden and Schumer and Reid and most other high-powered Dems in charge for the past decade were total immigration hawks and made things a lot worse.

As far as my needing to supply references that many on the left call for the abolition of ICE and a pullback in immigration enforcement ... seriously? I'm not going to read you the news.

So what, exactly, is the problem at the Southern Border? I'm thinking you do not know — tim wood

I've followed US-Mexican politics for forty years and lived in Mexico for four and a half years. I've been across the border in San Diego 60 times or so. You are wrong in your assumption that I don't know about the border. You know that fence sticking out into the ocean that you always see pictures of? I've been there. Not that any of this matters, but you're factually wrong about what I know.

But the point is, how did the Dems get from the Secure Fence Act accompanied by strong anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric, to the present stance of abolishing ICE and having open borders? Is everyone so consumed with hate against the Terrible Orange Man that they can't or won't examine even recent history?

I asked you some direct questions you didn't answer. Are you for a fence but against a wall? Is it just the word that bothers you? Are you in favor of tearing down the 580 miles (that's Wiki's number, earlier I posted a slightly different number I've read elsewhere)? Or do you think 579's too little, 581 too much, and 580 just right?

These are straightforward questions. Is it just the word wall versus fence that you object to? Or adding to the existing 580 or so miles of existing fence?

Let me try to summarize your apparent argument here:

"The Democrats voted for border security measures before. The wall is a border security measure. Therefore the Democrats should be in favor of the wall." — Echarmion

No that is not my argument. That's a strawman.

The point is that the Dems' current rhetoric is seriously out of alignment with their rhetoric from when they ran the government. You do know that Obama deported more Mexicans than Bush did, right? I object to the hypocrisy from the Dems on this issue. The Dems WERE in favor of STRONG border security before Trump showed up. Are you claiming to be unaware of that?

So, the argument now is not that Dems want open borders (the usual right-wing line), but actually that they are just as strong on border security as Trump and really want a wall, but covered it up in advance by pretending they only wanted a fence, — Baden

The point being that the Dems are awful hypocrites on this issue. Take the "putting kids in cages" picture used against Trump, that turned out to be from 2014 when Obama put kids in cages. In the summer of 2014 the Obama administration had a terrible humanitarian crisis on the southern border, which it handled very badly. Instead of separating families until their identities could be confirmed, the Obama administration just turned kids over to traffickers. You could look it up, some of the scandals became public.

It's terribly hypocritical for the Democrats to label Trump's policies as cruel when Obama's response to the 2014 crisis was arguably worse. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a lot of people don't even know about the 2014 crisis because there was very little mainstream coverage. So again it's political and has nothing to do with the reality on the ground.

For the record I don't agree with Trump's policies regarding the Mexican border. It's just that as someone who's followed US-Mexican politics for decades, I find the willful ignorance on the left appalling. Even those pictures of that woman and kid getting teargassed. Obama teargassed migrants at the border on average once a month from 2011 to 2016. You could look that up too. Hell I was teargassed at the Occupy protests in 2011. Ain't that big a deal. The moral posturing of the left is silly to people who actually follow border politics.

There are, then, no substantive reasons for building it. — tim wood

Tim, Can you please put into context for me the Dems' former strong support for a barrier (fence, wall, whatever) over the past few years? For example:

Democrats haven't always had such a hard position on the border wall. Over the past decade, Democrats have supported billions of dollars in funding for physical barriers. In 2006, the Secure Fence Act passed with bipartisan support requiring the construction of physical barriers along 700 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. Sixty-four Democrats voted the measure in the House and 26 in the Senate.

The current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted for it, so did Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama praised the bill in a floor speech saying it would "certainly do some good" and "help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country."

In 2013, all Senate Democrats and most House Democrats backed comprehensive immigration reform legislation, the so-called Gang of Eight bill. It included $46 billion for border security and around $8 billion to repair or reinforce barriers along the 700 miles of the border as required under the Secure Fence Act.

Schumer also briefly offered to deliver the Democratic votes to fully fund the border wall at $25 billion in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers. The January 2018 deal quickly fell apart amid a government shutdown, criticism from Democratic and Republican bases and Trump's insistence on adding legal immigration reform onto the deal.

Democrats supported the wall in 2006 when it was a fence

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/2006-secure-fence-act-vs-trumps-border-wall

I'm sure you've seen the strong anti-illegal immigration quotes from Obama, Hillary, and Schumer on video. If not I'll be glad to post them for you to study.

Question: There are currently 693 miles of fence along the US-Mexico border. Would you be in favor of tearing them down?

This is not a Trump or anti-Trump post. This is about the politics of the US-Mexico border.

Do you approve of a fence but not a wall? Is it the word "wall" you dislike, but you're ok with the word "fence" or "barrier?" Think the 693 miles of existing fence should be torn down? Or that 693 miles of fence is ok but definitely not 694? It's hard to understand how suddenly Trump is bad and evil for agreeing with what the Democrats voted for and spoke in favor of.

You can separate out the odds and evens similarly and end up with ω+ω = 2ω. — fdrake

Very nice post.

A quibble. I just happen to be brushing up on ordinal arithmetic this week. Ordinal multiplication is defined backwards from our intuition in my opinion. $\alpha \times \beta$ is defined to be $\beta$ copies of $\alpha$ concatenated.

So for example $2 \omega$ means $\omega$ copies of 2 strung together. The ordinal 2 represents the order 0, 1. If you line up $\omega$ of those, you get ... drum roll ... $\omega$.

On the other hand, $\omega 2$ is two copies of $\omega$ side-by-side. You can visualize this as 0, 2, 4,6 , 8,...,1, 3, 5, 7, ... the evens-before-odds order. That's $\omega + \omega$.

Other than that quibble, great post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_arithmetic#Multiplication

Bernie likes the North Korea deal. Isn't that interesting? The checkbox liberals are marching in lockstep against the concept of peace. It takes an independent voice to speak up for Trump's deal.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/12/bernie-sanders-tulsi-gabbard-break-with-pelosi-on-trump-kim-summit-important-first-step-towards-peace/

It's disappointing that you can't defend your position despite being repeatedly invited to do so. It's a philosophy forum. Drive-by one liners aren't going to cut it here. — Baden

I've written many lengthy posts explaining my position. It's a waste of fucking time. I really dislike the insult culture on this forum.

you are clearly talking out of your ass — Maw

I'm continually impressed by your ability to frame a logical argument. Not.

Holy shit you have no clue what you're talking about do you. — Maw

It's amazing how this is what passes for argumentation on a philosophy forum. Trump derangement syndrome. You can't see past your violent emotions. Compare with Obama's Iran deal, which the liberal media celebrated like crazy.

He just made peace with freaking North Korea.
— fishfry

No he didn't. — Maw

So you were similarly critical of Obama's Iran deal?

LOL. Of course not.

Let's get basic. I say Trump's a bad man, a very bad man. Agree? — tim wood

Not really, but for this discussion I take no position at all. Else I fall into the trap of defending Donald Trump. Why bother? I regarded him on election day as the second most awful candidate in the race. I still prefer him to the thought of Hillary being president. But past that I won't go. If I said a word in defense of Trump I could be legitimately characterized as a Trump defender and that is not the position I'm taking in this thread. Or in general for that matter. I'm a Trump explainer, but liberals these days simply can't hear that distinction. It's not just you.

You made the statement, How can any American not hate his guts. I hope that's a fair paraphrase, I didn't bother to scroll back for the exact wording.

And I said, well first, the deplorables (whom I agree are deplorable) still love him.

Second, anti-war independents such as myself do appreciate what he's doing in NK. Is that an accident? I see it as the direct result of his real estate hustler negotiating style. He deliberately keeps everyone off balance.

And the stock market's up, the labor market is tight as hell, and consumer confidence is at record highs. There are Americans enjoying those effects. When Bill Maher says he hopes the economy will crash to make Trump look bad, a lot of Americans think Maher is a teeny bit lacking in empathy for human beings. Which is somewhat of a liberal specialty these days.

So my question was not, "Do you think Trump sucks." I know how you feel. I am only asking you if your worldview allows you to acknowledge that MANY Americans are in favor of his presidency at the moment. His approval ratings are pretty decent, higher than what Obama had at this point in his presidency as I believe I read recently.

Can you see that many Americans approve of Trump at the moment at the very same time that the see his many faults? Can't you understand that?

I do not understand how anyone, anymore, can stomach Trump. — tim wood

He just made peace with freaking North Korea. That war's been going on as long as my lifetime. Now I wish he'd made human rights a condition of the deal. I'm disappointed about that. But don't you give this guy ANYTHING?

As far as ordinary people stomaching Trump, how about all the working class people with jobs, the people whose 401k is booming (hey it may all crash tomorrow but at the moment it hasn't crashed yet), the people who actually LIKE his cultural rhetoric (those are the deplorables, whom I deplore for the record. I've always been a social liberal with a libertarian streak).

But can't you see that

a) Trump has done SOME good stuff, like NK; and

b) Some people are very happy with him.

You don't have to like the guy, but can you see either or both of these points? Can't you see that SOME people, a LOT of people in fact, CAN stomach Trump just fine?

November will be interesting. I don't know if there will be big turnout. There's never big turnout in midterms and millennials may skew liberal but do millennials show up for midterms?

Who cares? — Maw

That's my question. Do you think this will have a positive or negative effect on the votes of middle America in November?

I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse

-- The Rolling Stones

So, what do y'all think of Robert De Niro saying FUCK TRUMP at the Tony awards? Do people here think this will (a) increase; or (b) decrease the Dems' chances in November? Do you think this is a sign of strength, or a sign of weakness as an argumentation tactic? If you and I are having a conversation about the multiverse, or the nature of mathematical inconsistency, or US politics, and I say, "Well, FUCK YOU!", do you regard that as a strong debating point or a weak one?

@tim wood What do you think?

we "Got Trump" because of liberals, whether it's due through the Democratic Party, or the concept of "Social Justice Warriors", or left-wing intellectual elitism, etc. — Maw

See you DO understand. You're just in denial. The day Hillary stood up on the floor of the US Senate and spoke passionately in favor of the Iraq war; the day Pelosi was briefed on torture and signed off; those are the datapoints on the road to Trump. And it's funny, because you clearly DO get it. You just don't want to face it.

Multiple members, not just me, asked you to provide examples of this and you didn't. — Maw

It's boring to have to read people the news.

... liberal self-flagellation ... — Maw

Some people call that introspection.

Last time I responded to you was actually five days ago, not two — Maw

I consider my entire thesis demolished.

He is a dangerously bad man. — tim wood

And Hillary was a dangerously bad woman. We could do this all day. I've said my piece and one person understood me, which is one more than usual in these political discussions. There's an election in November, we'll all find out at the same time what the American people think. Or as Churchill said, the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Fishfry said nothing in his post to indicate that he was a Republican. On the contrary, his points were all in line with a far-left critique of the democratic party. So I find it concerning that you jump straight into attacking republicans, thus misrepresenting his points straight off as some sort of republican projection, — John Doe

Thanks much. This is the second time in two days that @Maw did the same thing, which is why I didn't bother to reply. Yes, my disgust with the state of modern liberalism comes from decades of having considered myself a liberal. I understand why Trump got elected. I don't necessarily endorse his policies. And the Dems don't appear to even have policies anymore, just anti-Trump rhetoric. That's the problem. Trump calls MS-13 "animals," Pelosi defends MS-13. Is this not insanity?

I really appreciate that at least one person here understands exactly where I'm coming from.

Meh. Seems like it is his favourite negociation strategy. I imagine he thinks being unpredictable is a good thing. — Akanthinos

What has the centrist consensus gotten us? A dozen illegal semi-covert wars, torture camps, and $20T in debt [ok well the GOP are making that a lot worse], attacks on free speech from the left and the right. The American public chose to blow up the system rather than continue business as usual. That's what Trump is doing. We'll have to give it a few years to see the actual results. Meanwhile I regard the thesis that "Trump is Hitler" as irrational hysteria with zero basis in fact.

So just for my info, since I really haven't followed this story ... I do put a splash of milk in my morning coffee. Do I need to worry about something?

A good part of the trade war issue rest on the fact that Canada runs dairies according to a supply chain management system — Akanthinos

I'll have to plead ignorance. I'm appalled that Trump has picked a fight with Canada but I haven't followed the details regarding milk.

Can't answer for Tim, but up here, Trump is literally trying to force me to drink more pus. — Akanthinos

I missed that in my local paper. 'Splain me please?

Trump is the enemy of the people, all of the people; he is without ethics or scruple; lacking any compass whatsoever that points to the good, he cannot accomplish any. He is evil loose on a scale not seen since Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Most of us (white Americans) suppose we're not in his crosshairs, but we are mistaken in thinking so. His evil touches everybody directly or indirectly. — tim wood

Trump derangement syndrome.

But why did the Democrats rig their own primary process to nominate a corrupt, warmongering corporatist, and total political incompetent like Hillary Clinton? I'm curious. Does your hate of Trump allow you to see that the Democrats bear significant responsibility for his election? I can trace the corruption and fall of the Democratic party directly to Hillary's impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate in favor of the Iraq war; and the New York Times lying about Saddam's WMDs in order to promote that same war.

And before Trump ran for president, he was friends with the Clintons. He was Bubba's golfing buddy. What do you think Trump and Bubba talked about? Women's rights? Or pussy? What do you think?

The corruption of the Democrats made Trump inevitable. And what did the DNC do this week?Passed an anti-Bernie bill that requires a candidate for the Dem nomination to be an official member of the party. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/09/bid-to-block-bernie-sanders-dnc-adopts-rule-change-wants-only-avowed-democrats-to-run.html

If Trump is uniquely evil, what are the Democrats?

I believe tim wood brought up McConnell in relation to your claims about freedom of speech being at threat by the left. — Michael

Oh ok. I'm a lifelong liberal so I am actually more upset with the liberals these days, which is why my rhetoric skews anti-liberal lately The conservatives are doing what they always do, there's almost no point in calling them out. I'm perfectly happy to stipulate that the Constitution and the freedom of the American people are under serious assault by both parties these days. In fact that's why partisanship drives me crazy. It's not "the other guys" doing all these bad things. You know Bush could not have gone to war in Iraq without Hillary and the Dems. Pelosi and Feinstein and other so-called "liberals" signed off on the torture. The massive overspending is bipartisan, although to be fair both Bill Clinton and even Obama did try to get the deficit under control. To me, it's the people versus the government at this point. If you only point at one side you are not seeing things clearly IMO. It's the government that's badly out of control.

Which, by the way, explains Trump. If you believe that business as usual is leading to disaster, you're willing to roll the dice with a lewd, crude, attention-deficit blowhard like Trump. He could not have become president with only the deplorables, who make up 30% of the voting public. Many independent-minded people voted for him in the hopes that blowing up the system might be preferable to perpetuating it with the likes of the corrupt warmonger Hillary.

I notice you don't bother touching upon Trump's views on the NFL kneeling, — Maw

Funny you should mention that. I'm a big fan of the NFL and I think Trump's really a jerk to pick a fight with the Eagles. It turns out (heard this on the radio today) that no Eagles players knelt during the national anthem all year last season.

If I misunderstood your remarks on free speech, my apologies. But you did seem to be in favor of no-platforming certain classes of speakers; and at state-sponsored schools, that's a violation of the first amendment. At private schools it's a different set of issues.

This thread's not about Samantha Bee but By Gosh she called somebody FECKLESS! Now that's insulting. And regarding Rosanne, I'm annoyed that she made a racial remark aimed at Valerie Jarrett since it makes it that much more difficult to level serious, substantive, well-deserved criticisms of Jarrett.

You really seem to be wildly extrapolating things I didn't say. And I'm still mystified at why someone played the Mitch McConnell card on me. What the hell does he have to do with anything? It seems that if one calls out Trump derangement syndrome, one is assumed to support everything Trump says. If that's not bad logic I don't know what is. That's exactly what Trump derangement syndrome is. I say, "Don't let Trump trigger you all the time," and people somehow think this has something to do with the NFL and Samantha Bee.

I see. You have a point. But the "cannot obstruct" argument is being made by his lawyers in what I think is a very real effort taking place now. — Ciceronianus the White

Maybe so. That's quite possible. But the public brouhaha was sparked by Rudy Giuliani making yet another inexplicable public utterance that makes Trump look guilty and cannot possibly be construed as some kind of deep strategy. So naturally it got the talking heads on cable tv going. Then Trump echoed Rudy's talking point and the hysteria was on.

My point in posting was simply that there's no need for people to get triggered by every single public utterance that Trump makes. Why make a top post about the latest Trump pronouncement, Trump tweet, Trump scandal. Trump anything? Isn't there a point where people say, "Hey Trump's gonna be Trump, I'm going to save my outrage for things that really matter. Wake me when something actually happens, not just when Rudy Giuliani shoots off his mouth."

Clearly that point's wasted on those stricken with Trump derangement syndrome. I see all his flaws and for the record I'm a registered Democrat and longtime social liberal. I oppose many of Trump's policies.

I just don't get triggered by him like so many do. Like the taco bowl tweet. Liberals were outraged. I said to myself, "That's funny! This guy is a performance artist!" So I can agree politically with liberals about many of the social issues, but I can still stand back in bemusement at their reflexive hysteria every time Trump trolls them ... which is exactly what he's doing.

Then somehow, the thread turned to free speech, with someone suggesting that there are categories of people who shouldn't have it. That I regard as a very dangerous and disturbing thread of thinking on the contemporary left. Like I say, I support the 1977 position of the ACLU in the Skokie case. Free speech must include the most vile and despicable speech. If not, who will draw the line? As the brilliant civil libertarian Nat Hentoff titled his book: Free Speech for Me and not for Thee." https://www.amazon.com/Free-Speech-Me-But-Not-Thee/dp/006019006X

I see this morning that I have a number of replies to my posts. I regret that I won't be able to respond to each of them individually. Let me just say for the record that I have only two points:

* No law requires you to allow Trump to troll you repeatedly, day after day. Save a little outrage for the Democrats and corporatists who made his presidency possible and, in retrospect, inevitable. Like the Democratic Senators who recently confirmed torturer Gina Haspell as CIA director. Some "#resistance."

* I stand for free speech and the first amendment. Free speech for Nazis, free speech for racists, free speech for those morons at the Westboro Baptist church, free speech for you, and free speech for me. You can't limit the free expression of ideas and think you're going to keep a free society.

From the right, on the other hand, can you say Mitch McConnell? — tim wood

A little far afield from the thread topic. My original point is that one need not get their emotions jerked around by everything Trump says. As far as Giuliani's recent statements, nobody, left or right, has any idea what Rudy is doing or why he makes Trump's situation worse every time he opens his mouth. I'm not defending Trump. How does Mitch McConnell bear on anything anyone's talking about?

Before starting, refresh your understanding of what free speech is in constitutional terms. — tim wood

I have a far better understanding of free speech than the censors on the left. If @Maw had his way, how many other groups and individuals would find their right to free expression suppressed? See the Tommy Robinson case in England going on even as we speak. A guy sentenced to jail for 13 months for standing on a public street and reporting on a trial. And if you report on his arrest, you're in violation of the law too. Is that the kind of society people think they want?

I'm for free speech and the first amendment. I gather that makes me some kind of right wing racist in the eyes of many. I deplore what's happening on the left.

the platforming of anti-Semites, Islamophobes, racists, and misogynists — Maw

Those ideas are protected by the first amendment. If you don't get that, you don't get what this country is about. See the 1977 Skokie case. I'm with the ACLU on that one. I was at the time as well. It was a very difficult stand they took, but they were correct. If Nazis don't have free speech, nobody does.

How revealing that you have a list of people whose views may not be expressed That's a very slippery slope, my friend. I'd think history would have taught people that, but evidently not. Hence my point about the left, which you just confirmed.

In 2018 we are poisoned, by Trump to be sure, but also a right wing that apparently neither has no knows any principles at all. — tim wood

Enjoy your partisan hysteria. I'd be the last to try to take it from you. You honestly don't see the threat to free speech and free thought from the left?

In 1968 this country was stressed to be sure, but also in that stress vibrantly healthy. — tim wood

Well sure, in the hindsight of 50 years that's clear now. At the time it felt like the country was coming apart. You're suffering from recency bias. The present always seems far more real than the past.

The sound we hear is the shredding of our social fabric. If you don't think that's serious, you're mistaken. — tim wood

I lived through 1968 in the US so I'm immune to "the sky is falling" rhetoric about the shredding of the social fabric. 1968 is the year this country damn near did come apart. Now it's 50 years later and in hindsight, the country didn't fall apart. So spare me the rhetoric please.

the founding fathers presupposed that the most rational, knowledgeable, wise and/or otherwise moral men would be the leaders. — creativesoul

They supposed nothing of the sort. This is historically incorrect.

On the contrary, they assumed that future leaders would be venal, greedy, and no better or worse than people in general. That's why they designed a system with checks and balances so that no one individual and no one branch of government could run roughshod over the rights of the people.

I wonder why, then, the president and his lawyers are making these claims now. — Ciceronianus the White

I do too. Trump's a troll. You let yourself get trolled. A pardon's not relevant until he's convicted of a crime. That hasn't happened. Why not save your outrage for things that are actually happening? That's my question. You can't stay outraged all the time. Can you?

So, this has just been put into the public sphere — creativesoul

He's been prez a year and a half and still he lives rent-free in people's heads. Just let it go. He learned his craft as a reality tv star. He knows how to push people's buttons and get attention. Someone insightfully noted that liberals take Trump literally but not seriously; and conservatives take him seriously but not literally.

There is no law that requires you to react emotionally every time Trump says something. He hasn't been indicted or convicted of anything. If and when that day comes, the question of whether a president can pardon himself will be relevant. Today, it's just noise in your head.

A true nihilist would never bother to try to impress other people by publicly labelling themselves s nihilist. Any true nihilist must keep it to themselves in utter despair.

I've always taken this more as practical advice. Not only as you note that he's saying we shouldn't try to speculate on things we can't possibly ever have knowledge of -- the ultimate nature of the world, for example; but also that if we are ignorant of a topic we should put a sock in it. Don't go spouting off about things you don't know anything about.

As things stand, we have a predicate composed of simple, well-behaved elements to all appearances assembled in an acceptable way, and yet this predicate cannot possibly be predicated of anything. If we could say why this abomination is no predicate at all, we could regain the Paradise in which predicates always pick out classes. — Srap Tasmaner

The Russell predicate $x \notin x$ most definitely picks out a class: the class of all things that are not members of themselves. This class just doesn't happen to be a set. It simply turns out to be the case that some collections defined by predicates are sets; and others are not. Those collections that aren't sets are called proper classes.

In ZFC, there are no official proper classes, so we use the phrase informally. We say, "The collection of all things not members of themselves is a proper class," by which we mean that it's not a set. Or as we sometimes say colloquially, it's "too big" to be a set.

On the other hand there are set theories such as Gödel-Bernays set theory, or NBG, in which the concept of proper class is officially formalized.

I was replying exclusively to him. — Akanthinos

Oh sorry I didn't realize that. Thanks for clarifying.