Thanks! You're right that there are more problems with the statement than just that the second premise is modal. I only realized the issue with the internal structure of the first premise when I wrote it down with changed terms.

Of course, if all and only moral values are my values, we have a case of identity again.

Well, I am aware that some people here seem to be working with different systems of logic. — Bartricks

Right, and there is a reason for that. I, like you, am ignorant of the specifics of anything other than simple predicate logic, but it's important to know that these other systems exist and that predicate logic is limited.

Yes, I have been collecting modal cars for years. Joke. No, I am not sure exactly what it means, which is why I don't use it. I've getting from its use here that it means something like "I am about to confidently start talking nonsense". Is that right? That's how I interpret it. You, for instance, are about to talk nonsense, I think. — Bartricks

Modal comes from mode. Modal statements are one where the predicate is modified in some way. Say if the predicate is "blue" and the subject is the sky, a normal predicate statement is "the sky is blue". Statements such as "the sky is usually blue" or "the sky is necessarily blue" are modal. The terms "usually" or "necessarily" are modal, because they modify.

Am I talking nonsense to you?

Anyway, do you think the argument is valid? The superman one. Is it, or is it not, valid? — Bartricks

Simple predicate logic doesn't function correctly with modal statements. Like others, I'll attempt to illustrate, but I'll use standard language.

Let's start with the simple "Socrates is mortal" syllogism, but with a modal component:
1. All humans are mortal.
2. Socrates is not necessarily mortal.
3. Therefore Socrates is not human.

This is invalid, the conclusion doesn't follow. It would have to read "Socrates is not necessarily human", but he could be, because he could be mortal.

What works is structuring the syllogism so the modal component is effectively "bracketed out"
1. All beings that are necessarily human are necessarily mortal.
2. Socrates is not necessarily mortal.
3. Therefore Socrates is not necessarily human.

Now, your argument is:

1. If moral values are my values, then if I value something, necessarily it is morally valuable
2. If I value something, it is not necessarily morally valuable
3. Therefore, moral values are not my values.

Let's change the terms:
1. If men are mortals, then if Socrates is a mortal, necessarily he is a man.
2. If Socrates is a mortal, he is not necessarily a man.
3. Therefore, men are not mortals.

It is immediately apparent that this isn't valid. If Socrates is a cat, premise 2 is true, but the conclusion is nevertheless false. In fact, premise 1 is also invalid in it's internal structure. This is merely less visible in your example.

So what's up with your superman example?
1. If S is B, then If S is at G, necessarily, B is at G.
2. If S is at G, B is not necessarily at G.
3. Therefore, S is not B.

This is valid, but it is valid because of a special circumstance: That S and B are identical. This has the effect of "bracketing out" the modal statement again, due to the following:
If S is identical to B, then S is necessarily B and B is necessarily S.

We can therefore add an additional step between 2. and 3.:
2a. Therefore, S is not necessarily B.
From this 2a., 3. follows. But in our earlier Socrates example, it did not.

A final example:
1. If Bartricks is a superhero, then if Bartricks is at the grocery, necessarily a superhero is at the grocery.
2. If a superhero is at the grocery, Bartricks is not necessarily at the grocery.
3. Therefore, Bartricks is not a superhero?

Once again, there has to first be a crime until someone can be guilty or not guilty of it. — NOS4A2

There are a lot of crimes someone can be guilty of. Like murder. That's a crime that exists.

Are you aware that there are different systems of formal logic, and not all operations are permissible in all systems? Do you know what the term "modal" means?

I’m not in the habit of adopting another’s position — NOS4A2

Funnily enough, the insistence that one is an independent thinker is also part of the brand. But I'm not expecting you to give me a straight answer anyways

Social conservatism? I am socially liberal. — NOS4A2

But your definition of socially liberal is different from that of people you call "progressives". So, what's your take on Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson? Do you perhaps watch certain political Youtubers?

You scrupolously avoid outright stating any of your policy preferences, with the notable exception of your free speech absolutism. But everything I can glean from your behavior matches up more or less exactly with the attitudes of people who follow Ben Shapiro, or again certain Youtube "pundits".

I'm confused, you're a liberal yet support Trump? How does that work? — 3017amen

It's a specific interpretation of "liberalism" that is popular among mostly young men. The leading figures are people like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson. It claims to harken back to a "classical" liberalism, as opposed to modern "prorgessivism", which it claims is authoritairan and oppressive.

Essentially, it's the classic right wing mixture of economic liberalism combined with social conservatism. The social consevatism has a more recent baseline though, and it mixes in modern populism in it's supposed opposition to elites (not the economic ones though).

So, the White House released a transcript of the call, in which Trump specifically asks the president of Ukraine to do him a "favour" and restart investigations. He then specifically mentions Biden and his son.

4D chess or just stupid?

I'm not sure I'd be inclined to stick around to talk much given the level of engagement in most of the responses. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The other threads received more amiable responses though, but there was no further engagement.

I am no expert, but I would assume the notion that ” the action of sex typically demonstrates men as aggressive and dominant and women to be subordinate and passive" is a controversial notion among feminists, and the premise of this thread would be considered a fringe position.

Unfortunately for him, this course results in him undermining the constitution, parliament and the Crown, which will reflect very badly on him and his government. Also it will strengthen the opposition in Parliament. — Punshhh

Do you think his long-term strategy is a Trump-style populism, appealing to a narrow but highly mobilised and intensely partisan group of voters?

As an aside, I wonder what's up with the OP, posting three topics on feminism in quick succession, all with a very similar structure, and then apparently immediately abandoning them. Is this actually an attempt at creating a discussion or merely to highlight extreme positions purportedly taken by contemporary feminists?

Probably not. Your point? — NOS4A2

I can trivially name 10 important ruling men from history. I assume so can you. That should suggest something about the historical power structures to you.

the entire American media. — NOS4A2

Are Fox News, Breitbart etc. not American media? As to your question: evidently Trump's campaign was relatively more successful than Hillary's.

There are plenty Queens, Pharoahs and Emperors of the female sex throughout history. — NOS4A2

Really? Can you name 10 without using Wikipedia? Bonus points if you omit the English queens.

If God is the powerful rulers and also a man, then it suggests that men are powerful rulers--over whom? Women usually. Ergo, women become oppressed. — Artemis

I think it would, however, be mistaken to blame the oppression of women on the rise of christianity (or any specific religion). Women were essentially considered property in ancient and pre-modern China as well. Almost all societies around the globe, with some exceptions, were patrilineal, which means that women could not inherit property and had to integrate into their husband's family without having any initial status.

Christianity might actually have been beneficial to women in the long term, less because of it's content and more because it destroyed traditional kinship structures in western Europe, leading to different marriage patterns and a higher rate of women owning property.

Also, poverty affects black women in different ways than it affects black men, for example. — Artemis

But do the different ways differ (meta-difference) between black men and women and white men and women? Intersectionality only seems to have a genuine advantage if there is something specific to the combination of being poor, black and female that cannot be adressed from either framework individually.

Using the intelligence apparatus to spy on a political campaign is Watergate-level stuff. — NOS4A2

Just who was "using" the intelligence apparatus, and to what purpose, according to you? I'd ask for evidence as well but I know I won't get any.

What, some Facebook ads and fake twitter accounts contributed to Trump’s election? — NOS4A2

Yes.

In contrast, multi-millions in DNC propaganda and vast, incessant negative reporting did not contribute to Trump’s election? — NOS4A2

Well if it did, it must have been very poor propaganda indeed.

Is there actually any doctrinal support for the christian god having a gender?

This dossier was used to throw American politics, American law enforcement and the press into disarray for years to come, — NOS4A2

You're conveniently ignoring the role of a certain person, whose name starts with T, in throwing Ameircan politics into disarray. If Trumps actions had not been so incredibly suspicious, and incredibly disrespectful towards Congress, courts, and law enforcement, the Steele dossier wouldn't have thrown anything into disarray.

fundamentally threatening democracy itself — NOS4A2

Oh really? I'd like to hear you justify this claim.

Americans spied on other Americans. — NOS4A2

Based on the Patriot act, for which the Bush administration is majorly responsible. You're not claiming that the investigation into Trumps campaign marked the first time Americans spied on Americans, are you?

Did any Russian bots achieve so big a score? — NOS4A2

Since russian bots contributed to Trumps election, which is the root cause for all subsequent turmoil, they kind of did.

The question that comes to mind is how valuable it is for feminism to be intersectional? Can strutcural issues facing other minorities not be resolved within the context of that specific identity?

Now you don’t care that an American campaign was working with Russian intelligence to get dirt on their opponent in order to influence an election. Isn’t that a surprise. — NOS4A2

Oh I do care, you just don't have any evidence, and your conjectured story is contradicted by the documented efforts of the russian state to get Trump elected.

What do you think they were doing, telling the truth? Helping the American people? They spun a web that reached the highest offices in American intelligence, resulting in a massive tax-payer funded witch-hunt. — NOS4A2

So no, you don't have any evidence.

Yes it is because any complaint could be use to disrupt the highest office in the land from doing its constitutional duties. — NOS4A2

But it isn't just any complaint, is it? There is a process for vetting complaints. So why do you think this specific vetting process is insufficient? where do you draw the line?

Oh so now opposition research by the DNC was also a secret operation by the Russian intelligence services, who tried to undermine Trump while at the same time trying to get him elected?

Yes Steele worked with Russian FSB and intelligence officials in the Kremlin to produce a salacious dossier. You knew this, of course. — NOS4A2

And I am sure you have evidence that Steele worked "with" russian officials "to" produce a salacious dossier, rather than just using sources from those circles?

You think the American govt. should spy on its own citizens and political opponents? Wow. — NOS4A2

Yes, this is exactly what I said...

Demanding the president’s private conversations with leaders because someone who doesn’t even have direct knowledge believes it’s bad. — NOS4A2

Bad enough for the White House to not comply with it's legal obligations. Are those legal obligations somehow "overreach" to you?

In fact, it was those working for the opposing campaign that spread Russian-sourced active measures to the willing, who lapped it up with nary any criticism. — NOS4A2

Whatever are ”russian sourced active measures"?

We know the dodgy Steele dossier — NOS4A2

Look at you using Trump's propaganda speak.

was sourced from Russian intelligence — NOS4A2

It's not the nation of origin that matters. It's about working together with agents of a foreign and geopolitically "hostile" government. But you know this, you're just spreading propaganda.

which included the American govt. spying on American citizens, — NOS4A2

Which it is allowed to do thanks to legislation passed by a republican government.

This recent Ukrainian “scandal” will likely backfire—again— — NOS4A2

Possibly, Trump and his team have gotten better at this.

proving typical opposition overreach — NOS4A2

I curious, just what limits do you think the opposition is overreaching?

I find people prosthetising to be much more intolerable than speaking out against islam as part of some conspiracy theory. — DingoJones

The question is, why are you focusing on the Islam bit and not on the "secret pedophile ring run by the Clinton's" bit?

If our perceptions only exist in our minds — Ron Cram

Where else would our perceptions reside? Presumably, you don't intend to equate the outside world with any single set of perceptions, so we still need perceptions to be separate from that which generates them.

I have already claimed here the ability to prove the existence of an external world. — Ron Cram

The problem is that unless and until there is at least an outline of this proof, your criticism of Hume sounds rather hollow.

It was a ruse, a fraud, a swindle, a trick, a hoax. Believers were duped. — NOS4A2

No. There was evidence (lots of it) that Trump's campaign was involved with russian agents. Trump and various members of his campaign where caught lying about contacts with russian citizens multiple times. Then Trump fired Comey, citing the investigation into contacts with Russia as a reason - more evidence of wrongdoing.

All this caused a major investigation. Said investigation ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to indict anyone for collusion. Several other crimes were uncovered.

You're lying if you claim insufficient evidence is the same as "it was all a hoax".

Russian collusion was a theme of the media and, not coincidentally, the DNC for years. — NOS4A2

A theme is not a hoax. Stop sneaking in falsehoods via rhetoric or offhand remarks.

DNC-funded, anti-Trump opposition research led to the spying of their political opposition, and led a vast subsection of credulous voters to believe in the Russian collusion hoax. — NOS4A2

There was no Russian collusion hoax. There was an investigation. It found that the efforts of Trump's campaign fell short of criminal collision. You're lying through your teeth again.

At no point was the fact that the research was DNC funded, was gathered by a biased anti-trump spy, added to any FISA applications or their subsequent renewals. — NOS4A2

Perhaps it would have been added, if any of it was true, and not just partisan rhetoric. By the way, you seem to have omitted the question of whether the information was actually true.

If only we could ban the sources of such indoctrination just as easily.

Parliament? Yes, you’re right, Congress should investigate the executive branch. But as far as I know Trump is not investigating anyone. In fact, he was accused of encouraging the Ukrainians to do so. — NOS4A2

So you agree it's a false equivalence?

The interactions between the FBI, the DNC, FusionGPS and Christopher Steele’s DNC-funded oppo research implies to me otherwise. — NOS4A2

Obviously, because it implying otherwise fits your agenda.

We already know from testimony that the FBI counsel, James Baker, was given Russia investigation-related information by one of the lawyers of Perkins-Cole, who funded the dodgy Steele dossier, all of which was funded by the DNC. Either way, the investigation into the beginnings of that investigations, and the incestuous interactions between FBI and DNC, will be illuminating. — NOS4A2

So your standard for an "incestous relationship" (nice job inserting another baseless claim) is that a lawyer from a firm affiliated with the DNC gave information to an FBI counsel. That's about as incestous as sitting in a room with your cousin.

Let’s be sure we hold firm to our standards. — NOS4A2

There are no "our standards". There is you, employing your entire arsenal of rhetoric to defend Trump, and there is the rest of us. Your insistence that you defend some impartial standard is just more rhetoric.

But remember, at least half a dozen committees of the U.S. Congress are investigating the President, which should give an idea of what taxpayer money is being spent on: seeking leverage against a political opponent. — NOS4A2

Your supposed standard here is really just false equivalence. It's the parliament's job to investigate the president. It's not Trump's job to investigate the Bidens.

This is to say nothing of the spying on the Trump campaign by the previous administration and the party in power. — NOS4A2

Trying to sneak one of Trump's false claims in here by including "the party in power" here. Any spying on Trump has since been disclosed, and it wasn't done at the behest of the party.

Whataboutism? That’s convenient when your party and beloved candidates might be guilty of exactly that which you’ve been accusing others of being guilty of. — NOS4A2

You ran out of things to spin, so now it's deflection: "hey look at these other people, maybe they are bad, too".

Honestly, I am a bit disappointed you didn't come up with more creative stories.

It doesn't matter - most Muslims either can not read at all and/or have not read any book but the Qur'an. It also doesn't matter because a Muslim will "believe" that all books are inferior to the Qur'an - the Qur'an being "believed" to be from a god, but is, in fact, just as man-made as any other book. — A Gnostic Agnostic

So the "House of Islam" suppresses information, that Trump has, in order to safe Islam, but also the information doesn't matter because Muslims will not care?

They accused Donald Trump of the same: his score came back perfect.

What "mental illness" did you have in mind, specifically? — A Gnostic Agnostic

I am not "accusing" you, I am just worried. I am not a medical professional, so I will not attempt a diagnosis. But your post is so rambling and so far away from what we'd call "reasonable", that I think you should consider getting help.

This information is being kept from the Muslims as the House of Islam continues to suppress any/all attempts to call into question the Islamic account of history in which Muslims so vehemently "believe" in. — A Gnostic Agnostic

The "information" is actually freely available. There are entire books written on the subject.

Also: The style of your post suggests you're suffering from a mental illness. Please consider getting professional help!

That’s corruption. That’s exactly what Joe Biden is being accused of: firing the official that was investigating his son’s company. Not only that, but the DNC is also a target for investigation for working with Ukraine, a foreign power, to influence the 2016 election. — NOS4A2

The usual whataboutism. But Clinton did a thing!

According to the press and their followers, Trump’s big crime is speaking with the president-elect to work with Guilliani. — NOS4A2

Now it's just "speaking" and not using US funds in military aid as leverage. The spin machine in action.

It’s all DNC spin, because it’s actually themselves and their candidates who allegedly broke laws, — NOS4A2

"It's fine if I break the laws, they did it first"! Just more whataboutism.

I don’t get it it. The alleged corruption would involve both Americans and Ukrainians. Does this not compute when viewed through the lens of the DNC narrative? — NOS4A2

You don't get that the executive is not supposed to influence criminal investigations, either domestic or abroad, especially not when high-profile political opponents are involved?

No, they’re not neutral. The state dept has to carry out the foreign policies of the administration. But they are completely relevant to the situation, not only because they are involved in it, but also because combatting corruption abroad falls under their purview. — NOS4A2

Oh, are we already changing the narrative from "we're investigating an american for the sake of american justice" to "we're combatting corruption abroad"?

Like... me petting, or holding, the cat while drunk or asleep... or, Alexa the automatic cat-petter petting the cat... or, Alexa the autonomous neural-network machine self-trained to pet the cat... or, the cat's mother petting the cat — bongo fury

What I originally said was that it's clear what "conscious experience" refers to. If I am drunk I am still conscious, but not when I am asleep. I am also not an automatic machine, or a cat. So none of these things are my conscious experience.

At least, it probably marks an occasion when consciousness happened, although not necessarily consciousness of the memory, except on the slightly question-begging interpretation of remembering as "recalling to mind". I might be trying and failing to identify the relevant word or picture (etc.) of the scene, or just curiously disturbed by an unconscious association with the scene or those symbols. But of course, my consciousness while petting the cat is not necessarily of the petting, either. — bongo fury

Right, but uncertainities of memory aside, while we "recall" it, we are certainly consciously experiencing.

Sure. Plenty of fascinating if potentially illusory data from introspection of transitioning into and out of "waking" consciousness. Man!

Equally, I desire to establish a common ground of agreed cases of non-consciousness. The project is slightl — bongo fury

I am not sure we can know when we are not conscious. How would we differntiate between not having been conscious and simply not remembering?

That would be a genetic fallacy, dismissing a report based on where it comes from and not on its merits. — NOS4A2

It would be, but I didn't dismiss it.

But it raises a great point: the State Department actually asked Rudy Giuliani to contact the lawyer for Ukraine’s president.

Why is this never mentioned? — NOS4A2

Probably because Trump controls the State Department, so we can't assume the State Dept. is a neutral player here. Besides, the whistleblower report apparently doesn't concern Guliani at all. So bringing up Guliani and his contacts is a red herring.

No, he’s fully within the law and the constitution is what I’m arguing. No need to twist it anymore than you’ve already tried. — NOS4A2

I think you're probably wrong about that. Who knows, maybe we'll find out.

According to recent reports, Trump is arguing that as president, he cannot even be investigated! — tim wood

I don't think it'd be indefensible to have a rule that a head of state could not formally be investigated without some legislative proceedings. Key word being formally, there always needs to be a way to run a preliminary investigation in order to allow the legislative to make a deicison.

But of course, in Trumps case, a nuanced rule like that isn't the point. The point is to muddy the waters.

But if and when the law explicitly removes itself from the arena, then what bounds self-defense? Ans.: nothing. The president "above the law"? Then I think we'll all need an AR-15 and a thousand rounds. Above or outside the law is very serious business, and any who thinks otherwise is a fool. — tim wood

There seems to be an overlap with the current legal challenge regarding prorogation in Britain. If executive decisions are not justiciable at all, this invites an abuse of power.

But the state department set up the meetings and assisted the efforts, and by some reports, encouraged Guilliani to investigate. — NOS4A2

That article set off so many red flags I googled the author. Guess what type of bias he is known for?

Anyways, the state dept is part of the executive. It does not have authority to assign Rudy Guliani as an investigator on behalf of "America".

Correct, and thepresident can basically say whatever he wants to foreign leaders. — NOS4A2

So, the president is above the law and the constitution when he talks to foreign leaders. Interesting.