t’s not out of the question to suspect that the most powerful man in the universe is privy to more information than you or I. — NOS4A2

LOL! You've pretended you hadn't drunk the Trump Kool-aid, and were merely being pragmatic. You're worse than the people you hypocritically criticize, because you give credibility to a man who's been shown to have been non-factual over 18,000 times during his Presidency.

Yes, you guys are over-sensitive to whatever phrases the media sensationalizes for you, and utterly forgetful or blind to anything else he says. I am not. — NOS4A2

You're confusing me with someone else. I just notice that he tells a great many untruths, largely from stupidity and arrogance. Given that he says so many falsehoods, it seems nuts to attach any credibility to anything he says. You did, and that seems nuts.

But you displayed sensitivity to Trump's reference to "Obamagate". Sensitivity is not just negative.

I have wondered how Christians rationalized Jesus' last words --- "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Jesus probably didn't say that. That statement is taken from Psalms 22:1.

Trump knows something. More info soon? — NOS4A2

I had come around to accepting the fact that you didn't care what Trump says because you like what he does. But when you start taking his words seriously, and repeating it, it belies that. Are you also a birther?

Lying to ensure you get a cushy job is about his current character and fitness for the job as a judge. I would've hoped there's not that much subjectivity involved about that. That's irrespective of making a judgment call on whether he raped that woman or not. — Benkei

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but at the time - I opposed Kavanaugh's nomination. I thought Blasey-Ford's allegations were credible - both because she was credible and because it pertained to plausible antics for a teen-age boy of privilege. By all accounts that I'm familiar with, he outgrew it (except for his affection for beer) and became a respected judge with a commendable life. I wouldn't hold the alleged teen-age assault against him, just his lies, lack of empathy, and the way he reacted - which didn't seem very judicial to me. Biden's case is a bit different - he and the alleged victim were adults, so it's not the antics of an immature teen, and there's no apparent pattern of such behavior - so I lean toward thinking that he didn't do it. I can't claim I'm completely objective, but I don't think anyone can. I expect that if a poll were taken, Democrats would tend to think Kavanaugh was guilty and Biden innocent, and Republicans would tend to think the exact opposite.

It's true that the charges should not be treated the same. There is more corroborative evidence in Biden's case than there was with Kavanaugh's. — StreetlightX

Biden's accuser publicly praised him after the alleged event. That's odd behavior for someone who is the victim of sexual assault. Nevertheless, I think it's possible he did it, but it's also possible she exaggerated at the time. How does one treat possibilities like this? I think it will inevitably boil down to one's judgment of the man's character. The same thing goes for Kavanaugh. Character judgment is subjective, and this juxtaposition demonstrates that. People can vote against Biden for this, if they judge it that way. Others are free to judge it differently. There's no objectively correct judgment.

“believe all women”. The fuck I will. I dont believe anybody all the time. Human beings are treacherous, dangerous animals. — DingoJones

Rather: Investigate all claims corroborated by physical, circumstantial & non-hearsay testimonial evidence. — 180 Proof

I tnink we agree that something more is needed than an accusation. Some investigation is needed just to see if there's corroboration.

Kavanaugh and Biden are a good pair of cases to compare. There are some differences between the cases, but are the differences sufficient to consider only one exonerated?

That consideration would apply to both sides, many dems are ignoring Bidens sexual misconduct and focusing on Trumps. Biden being the creep/sexual misconduct type is more believable based on what ive seen and heard to be honest. — DingoJones

It's hypocritical to apply a double standard, and
the potential is there for Dems, but it's more than potential for any Trump supporter who blasts Biden.

Politics aside, it would be nice if we could consider how we should respond to such accusations. I think accusations should be taken seriously, but accusations should not become lethal weapons.

don’t care what republicans think, frankly. In fact the rearranging of republican politics was one of the greatest things of a Trumpian takeover. — NOS4A2

You had said you hoped the "political theater" was being "destroyed in the wake of Trump's presence". All I did was show that's not happening.

I think questionable statements are commonplace outside of the public relations politics we’ve all grown accustomed to. I remember a time when a weird scream would ruin a politician’s electability. That form of political theater is, I hope, destroyed in the wake of Trump’s presence. — NOS4A2

Consider that lots of Republicans give Trump a pass on his numerous instances of sexual misconduct but still go after Biden's. Many do the same with gaffs: Trump's gaffs are OK because they like what he's doing, but then they still jump on Biden's. So I don't think that Republican's acceptance of Trump's negatives (present company excepted) will have any bearing on the future. To quote Stephen Tyler: "Dream On!"

I understand why you’d feel that way and agree that his style may “impassion opposition”. The issue I have is I’m not sure that this differs much from routine snobbery. — NOS4A2

It is routine for the opposition to react to a President's questionable statements. What isn't routine is the number of questionable statements.

understand that some of his words may be off-putting and offensive to others, yes. But I think offensiveness is a common trait among human beings. Most people, right left, of all races and creeds, cannot stand political correctness. So who is more out of touch? History is replete with people who say offensive things. I don’t think they’re evil. Often they are necessary. — NOS4A2

Here's what I infer from Trump's words:

His top priority is his own self-interest. He's arrogant to the point of narsiccism, rude, insensitive, never accepts that he's wrong, he has poor judgment, too often trusting his ill-informed gut over expert opinion, easily duped, he lies frequently - but more often he's just displaying ignorance, he is overly prone to confirmation bias (e.g. accepts fake news that conforms to his biases), fails to take responsibility for his own words and actions. He is divisive.

Can you understand why I'd feel this way? You often challenge others to convince you YOU'RE wrong. Can you convince me I'm wrong?

I get that Trump's base of supporters don't care about the above because he's pushing for things they like, but this "style" is more apt to impassion opposition to him than to win people over. Do you agree or disagree? Even if you disagree now, if he loses - won't that imply I'm right?

FI you can work from home, theres a good chance yours is a bullshit job. — Banno

Im retired but my erstwhile career was in IT. I could do my job just as well from home as when i the office. By your estimation, mine was a bullshit job. I beg to differ.

I try not to confuse poor speaking with poor action, and I cannot see why anyone would unless one was fooling himself through blind hatred. But I am open to being convinced otherwise. If, as you say, his full-time job is to hurt others, perhaps you can provide some examples of who he has hurt and how he has done so? — NOS4A2

I accept your view about Trump's words being irrelevant to you, but do you understand that his words are extremely off-putting and sometimes offensive to others? Even though you don't care what he says, don't you think it's fair to judge his character based on the things he says?

IMO, If he does not get reelected, it will be because of these things. Do you agree?

Third, therefore the mostly likely scenario is that there has always been something. Debating what that something is (God, some supernatural entity that isn't God, some fundamental particle etc.) is the subject for a different thread, but it seems pretty clear that at rock bottom, there must be something that exists as a metaphysical necessity. — Michael Nelson

An a posteriori necessity, right?

Ultimately though, what transpired was openness to plausibility of a something from nothing scenario over that of an eternal thing, or a little of both, maybe.

Thus begins somewhat of an inquiry as to what exactly is meant by nothingness, and the nature thereof. — CorneliusCoburn

Something cannot come from nothing. Something in the classical world of material objects (as were perceived them) can come from a quantum system that lacks such objects.

That is the so-called "something from nothing" scenario that have been postulated by some physicists, like Laurence Krauss, Alexander Vilenkin, and Sean Carroll.

I think the idea that he is suggesting injecting bleach into people, or something like this, is an uncharitable, not to mention inaccurate, interpretation of what he was saying — Wolfman

I agree. But despite our goodwill toward Trump on this matter, he reacts to the unfair reporting by lying, claiming he was being sarcastic.

No, he wasn't recommending people ingest bleach. He was making a naive extrapolation from what he had just heard about the effectiveness of various methods of killing the virus on surfaces. But he just can't bring himself to admitting that, so he has to lie.

I'm convinced the gross level of presidential maladminstration is even greater than these cocktail napkin figures suggest. The Covidiot-in-Chief has been pushing dangerous drugs unproven for Covid-19 treatment for about a month and now suggests injecting disinfectants into Covid-19 patients to "clean" them inside out. As if he doesn't have enough blood on his little hands already ... :shade: — 180 Proof

Trump says some extremely stupid things, but its less clear that any of his actions or inactions have caused preventable harm.

It's easy, with hindsight, to say actions should have been taken earlier, but we'd need to judge that based on the conditions, and state of available knowledge, at the time.

I'm not a Trump apologist, but I do think we should judge the facts fairly. IMO, the majority of the untruths he mouths are the result of extreme stupidity, not duplicity. Fortunately, there are smart people doing the real work here (like Dr. Faucci). Trump is nothing more than an idiotic pundit.

Today our illustrious leader proposed the following remedies:

“Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous ultra violet or just very powerful light. And I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you are going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you could do either through the skin or in some other way. I think you said that you are going to test that, too. And then I saw the disinfectant, where knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way we could do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning. As you see it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”

Is it wrong of me to wish he would try these things on himself?

I think restricting immigration during the pandemic is reasonable. Anything that reduces person to person contact is good. On the other hand, praising protest gatherings is a bad idea

Trump has said lots of stupid things. Thank goodness the deep state is doing many good things, in spite of him.

"1" has the superficial grammar of a noun, but this is misleading.

Rather "1" is to be understood through its role in the process of counting. It is understood in learning how to count, not in pointing to individuals. — Banno

"1" refers to an abstraction , as do all natural numbers.

Consider the abstraction, "3" . Three-ness is a property that is held by some states of affairs: those consisting of 3 objects.

"+1" is a successor relation that holds between two consecutive natural numbers. In the real world, this maps to a relation between states of affairs. For example it's a relation between a collection of 3 apples and a collection of 4 apples.

I'm tempted to encourage Trump supporters to attend anti-social distancing protests. The bigger, and more tightly packed, the better.

Do any of you remember the Iraqi Information Minister (AKA "Baghdad Bob")? During the Iraq War, he would give daily briefing that were totally divorced from the facts. For example:

When US forces were in Bagdad, he said, "They're not even within 100 miles of Baghdad. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

After the US forces captured the airport, he announced, "Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed." and later: "We have retaken the airport. There are no Americans there. I will take you there and show you. In one hour."

And this particularly memorable quote:"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"

Remind you of anyone?

I agree.

He has operated according to federalist principles: supporting the states in their efforts, providing funds and assets where needed. — NOS4A2

He was not supporting the states when he said it was entirely their responsibility to obtain ventilators they felt they needed. He later complained that some governors were asking for too many. It's not because anyone's stupid, it's because everyone's on their own in trying to figure out how to estimate their needs. The smart thing would have been to take on a coordination role as early as possible. The only thing he's done consistently from the beginning is to cast blame) and claim credit. At a time when strong, effective leadership is needed, he makes it about him.

I think you’re probably right on that. A federalist government does not serve us well in this pandemic. All the more reason why we should not depend on the federal government and expect more from our state governments. — NOS4A2

That sounds contradictory. I suggest that the lesson is that a dogmatic view of federalism is problematic. It may be best in some cases to leave things to the state, but this demonstrates there are other cases when it is not.

He has operated according to federalist principles: supporting the states in their efforts, providing funds and assets where needed. — NOS4A2

Trump claims that he has absolute authority over Governors. How is that consistent with federalist principles?

Federalism does not serve us well in this pandemic. Consider the ventilator problem: if each state is on its own, this creates two problems: 1) the states compete with each other for a scarce resource, ensuring winners and losers, and driving up the price.2) each state has to manage for its own peak needs. Add together 50 peak requirements is bound to be considerably higher than the national peak, because the peaks will not be concurrent.

Divine creation is not consistent with methodological naturalism. That hypothesis can only be entertained with a metaphysical scope.
— Relativist
I did not state or imply otherwise. Methodological naturalism can only go so far, which is one reason why it is a mistake to convert it to metaphysical naturalism. — aletheist

You brought up supernaturalism when you said divine creation avoids an infinite regress. That enlarged the scope of analysis to metaphysics. If we're entertaing metaphysical solutions to an infinite regress, then we can also consider solutions consistent with metaphysical naturalism. Right?

Trump has announced that he will withhold funding for WHO, because they're to blame for the pandemic's spread to the US.

I have no doubt that WHO's processes could have been better - maybe much better. But the appropriate thing to do is to learn from the mistakes, and develop processes to avoid repeating them. Every government entity in the US (federal, state, and local) and in the world should do the same thing.

In any case, whether we are talking about science or philosophy, it is a truism that nothing of any substance can be explained away without residue. — SophistiCat

Apologists claim that God's metaphysical necessity subsumes the residue. Of course, this doesn't explain his contingent choices.

Possibility leaves the door open for correction and reformation. — Possibility

I'm fine with that.

OMG, what an f-ing moron!:

“For the purpose of creating conflict and confusion, some in the Fake News Media are saying that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government. Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect....” Mr Trump wrote on Twitter. “...It is the decision of the President, and for many good reasons.”

That is appropriate for scientific inquiry, but metaphysical naturalism entails some sort of brute fact foundation for what exists.
— Relativist
Scientific inquiry employs methodological naturalism, but it is a mistake to convert this to metaphysical naturalism.

Otherwise there's an infinite regress.
— Relativist
On the contrary, divine creation is an example of an explanatory hypothesis that avoids an infinite regress. — aletheist

Divine creation is not consistent with methodological naturalism. That hypothesis can only be entertained with a metaphysical scope.

The spirit of scientific inquiry should preclude us from ever simply accepting something as a brute fact. — aletheist

That is appropriate for scientific inquiry, but metaphysical naturalism entails some sort of brute fact foundation for what exists. Otherwise there's an infinite regress.

, it would be an assumption that laws hold for all time and in all places, rather than holding where and when we know they hold. — Coben

By that reasoning, we shouldn't consider there to be laws of nature at all. That makes no sense. Physics develops theories about laws based on empirical evidence - the laws explain observed regularities.

So we infer a law based on observed regularities, then you say we should assume these aren't really regularities. See the problem?

It's a paradigmatic assumption. I am not blaming scientists for having gone with it. We work from local to more distant time and place. But that assumption that these things do not change is not parsimonious since one need not make that assumption and one can still use all the, for example, mathematical models that work now and seem to have been in place for a while. It's not less parsimonious NOT to make that assumption. Less assumptions cannot be less parsimonious. — Coben

Parsimony entails explaining the available facts with the fewest assumptions, not with entertaing the possibility we are missing some facts.

That said, it is reasonable to seek scientific explanation for why the constants have their values. Scientists should not accept brute facts.

The issue with the constants straddles the line between physics and metaphysics.

Perhaps the values of the constants are set by natural law. If not, their values are brute fact. The FTA treats them as brute facts that could have differed.

I regard it as an innate, incorrigible believe that is unanalyzable in terms of a priori principles. In short: it a basic belief, a foundation for every other belief. The "certainty" is nothing more than the incorrigibility.
— Relativist

I recognise that at some point we feel compelled to draw a line to protect the integrity of the system. Something must be incorrigible, but that something is not necessarily — Possibility

"Incorrigible= not able to be corrected or reformed. That applies here. This is not an arbitrary assumption we pull out of thin air. No one has to be talked into it. Perhaps you've talked yourself out of it, but the only basis seems to be that it's possibly wrong. Possibility is not a defeater of belief. If you treat it as such, then you can have no beliefs other than analytic trurhs.

Cool. Thanks!

Not sure that it implies that anything requires an explanation? Heavy metals are "rare" due to the way that they are formed (with respect to the rest of the cosmos) and likewise fulfill the rare functions that they fulfill because of their "ontological matrix". — Pantagruel

Humans are likewise rare for the same reason. But one could make a fine tuning argument that the fundamental constants must have been finely tuned so that X would be produced, because X is otherwise very improbable. (for X=heavy metals or humans).

Nevertheless, this is different than the case of Mary. There must be some explanation why she would live rather than die.

I think assuming teleology is unwarranted, but also perhaps unnecessary. A carbon atom is no more mysterious than a hydrogen atom, but opens up a whole universe of new possibilities.

I agree.