Case closed? Yes, case closed; it isn't treason. Furthermore, they can disobey. They'll just be punished for it, were Trump willing. — Michael

I can care less how lawyers find a way to classify it in the law. I'm a practical man. It's same with accounting - I don't care how accountants classify things, that's their problem.

It matters less how you call it or how you classify it.

Article 90 isn't the crime of treason. It's the crime of "Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer." — Michael

Ok, so practical matters considered, they cannot disobey the order. Case closed.

Did Billy attempt to blow up the bank? — ProbablyTrue

Yes, because he actually initiated action that would have blown up the bank, and it is only a fortuitous occurrence which stopped it.

I ask you for your source that shows that it is treason to disobey the President and you provide me a link to an article that doesn't mention treason at all. — Michael

It results straight from reading and understanding the law.

Treason isn't mentioned there at all. — Michael

It doesn't need to be mentioned - we're not in kindergarten.

However, Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution provides that the “President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”. Under Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to disobey an order in peacetime is punishable by life in prison. If we believe the Pentagon theory that we are involved in a “Global War on Terror”, then there is an ongoing war, and the punishment for disobeying orders is death.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/14/military-ignores-obamas-order-release-shaker-aamer-guantanamo

Really, you have zero familiarity with military history and how things actually work.

I already provided you with a link to an article on what it means to give aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. Disobeying the President isn't one of them. — Michael

Yes it is. It doesn't need to be specifically mentioned in the law to be so. The law provides general principles, it never mentions all particulars of implementation.

No it isn't. — Michael

Any act of disobedience in the military promotes further disobedience, which aids the enemy in a war effort and prevents the cohesion that is necessary for the nation to be victorious. (not to mention that it slows down what could be critical war efforts)

No it isn't. — Michael

Yes it is, ask any lawyer that deals with military cases, and you'll see. Through all of human history, disobeying military commands was brutally punished, precisely because the consequences of doing so could be very grave.

No it isn't. Treason is "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere." — Michael

You don't understand how the law works. Disobeying a military order is giving aid to the enemy.

And even if it were; better to die a traitor than live as a mass murderer. — ProbablyTrue

And yes, if things got that far, there would be a lot of chaos, and we'd move into a mode of operation that is outside the constitution, with different factions forming, Congress maybe opposing the President, etc. At that point, it doesn't matter what the law is, what matters is who controls the power structures better and whose orders are followed.

We've gone over this. It isn't treason to disobey the President. — Michael

Yes it is. The President is the Supreme Commander of the military, and it is TREASON to disobey a military order of the President, punishable by death. No military in this world allows ANY kind of disobedience of orders.

Although normally nobody is allowed to refuse the president's order

This is from the article PT quoted.

This is wrong. — ProbablyTrue

Why?

Not strictly true. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42065714 — ProbablyTrue

Yes, they can debate the President and try to convince him otherwise, but if he says this is what we have to do, they cannot disobey.

And even if it were; better to die a traitor than live as a mass murderer. — ProbablyTrue

That's a different matter altogether now.

Trump orders Mattis to nuke NK. Mattis refuses. Trump didn't try to nuke NK? — ProbablyTrue

And by the way, if Mattis refuses in such a hypothetical case, that is unconstitutional. The generals CANNOT refuse the President in such a circumstance. They can try to convince him otherwise, but if it's an order, it cannot be refused - that would be treason.

Exactly, but by the same token you can use statements containing special pleading as premises, because the justification does not have to be contained within the statement if it is a premise to further analysis. — Pseudonym

Sure, except that special pleading points to a double standard. Why does the statement of the positivists make an exception to the general rule? And if you answer with the statement itself, then you'll beg the question in your larger argument.

You're repeatedly judging the single metaphysical statement of positivists by different standards to its exact opposite statement. — Pseudonym

No I'm not - you're trying to do that by saying that it is an exception to itself, which is meant to be the general rule. I'm trying to judge it by what it purports is the general rule.

Trump orders Mattis to nuke NK. Mattis refuses. Trump didn't try to nuke NK? — ProbablyTrue

No, he was considering it, but he didn't actually try to do it. If he orders Mattis, and Mattis starts initiating the procedures, and then something goes wrong and they don't do it anymore, then he did order him.

The process begins with Trump telling a subordinate. That subordinate refused. — Michael

No he didn't. He just expressed what he would do in case Trump would order him, that he would resign. He did not resign. Why not? Because Trump didn't order him.

So no - first principles don't beg the question by virtue of being first principles. That is absurd.

Backing off under threat of great consequences is different than a casual discussion about whether he should or not. — ProbablyTrue

It still remains a fact that he did not embark upon the process of firing Mueller. He chose not to at the end of the discussion with McGahn.

You would also have understood point (4) much better, which you have conveniently ignored, that if metaphysical statements about metaphysics are to be analysed by their own conclusions then every such statement becomes meaningless. The statement "metaphysical statements are meaningful" is also meaningless by this standard because it begs the question (you have to already believe metaphysical statements are meaningful in order to believe the conclusion). — Pseudonym

No, this doesn't follow. If you take statement (1) "Some (or even all) metaphysical statements are meaningful", you will not find it begging the question UNLESS you use it as a premise in an argument looking to derive the same conclusion as (1). But if you use it as a premise for any other purpose, it is not begging the question.

So we either allow a kind of suggestive metaphysical proposition, even though we might have to suspend some analytical principles temporarily in order to explore the implications, or we must dismiss entirely our ability to say anything about metaphysics as all such statements would themselves be metaphysical and cannot be assessed until we have judged the value of metaphysical statements. — Pseudonym

I don't see how this is the right approach at all. You do not accept self-contradictory axioms, and instead you pick reasonable axioms that have a prior probability of being true (that aren't self-contradictory in other words) and don't commit other logical fallacies, and go from there.

Telling someone to do something isn't an action? — ProbablyTrue

No, not in all contexts. Some discussions are facultative, merely done for the purpose of seeing what other people's positions are for example. Trump did not order Mueller to be fired, if he had done that, then McGahn would have resigned. He did not resign, hence Trump did not order it. He wanted to order it, and when he saw that McGahn and others don't support it, he didn't.

That may not count as obstruction of justice per se, but it clearly shows that he attempted it. — ProbablyTrue

No, it's not attempted obstruction. He considered taking a certain course of action, and was persuaded differently. Considering a course of action is different from actually embarking upon it.

What point? That Trump talked about firing Mueller and considered doing it?

The news that reports the facts. — Michael

Nope, those aren't facts. It's not a fact that Trump tried to obstruct justice. That is your silly spin. What is factual is that some people from the White House have declared that Trump initially told them to fire Mueller, or expressed his desire to do so. That's all.

Only if you accept the premise within the statement, which you can't do without accepting the statement. — Pseudonym

So if you accept the statement, it is contradictory. This is known as a performative contradiction in philosophy, and it is a valid ground for dismissing the statement as incoherent. It's not a paradox since it's not an argument or syllogism.

an exception to its own conclusion. — Pseudonym

This is the fallacy of special pleading, and again, is grounds for dismissing a statement.

Whichever way you take it, logical positivism is incoherent. There is no way to escape from this, which is why logical positivism was very short-lived. The ethical extension of logical positivism, known as emotivism, is still around though, unfortunately.

I'm repeating what the news has reported. — Michael

The anti-Trump news you mean? Like CNN.

Good documentary on Trump:

The action taken was telling McGahn to have Mueller fired. — Michael

No, that's not an action, that's a discussion that was moving towards taking a certain action.

This is all just nonsense spin. — Michael

What you are doing is spin, since you don't take the events as they happened, instead you twist them so that you can say Trump "ORDERED" Mueller to be fired and actually tried to obstruct justice. No he did not - he contemplated it, but at no time did he take or attempt to take an action that obstructed justice.

No it doesn't. Again, you seem to just be fabricating legal knowledge apropos of nothing. Try actually doing some research, as I have been doing. Here's a good place to start. — Michael

I don't see how the document linked disproves what I said. Can you give a citation please that you think disproves it?

I do not object to discussing pathological anxiety, I object to restricting "anxiety" to being a pathological condition. — Metaphysician Undercover

Where did I say anxiety should be restricted to a pathological condition? I recall multiple times in this thread when I told you the opposite.

And, like things such as body temperature, and blood pressure, etc., we might determine a normal range of anxiety. But also like things such as body temperature and blood pressure, I believe that when anxiety goes out of the normal range, it is a symptom of an illness, it is not an illness itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

It may be the illness itself, not a symptom of it. I have always had borderline high-blood pressure of no identifiable cause - the doctors ran all possible tests. Do I have an illness according to you that is different from the high-blood pressure itself?

As I said, we as the monkey-minded, do things, we get things done, and this is very satisfying, extremely enjoyable. — Metaphysician Undercover

What makes you think those who control the monkey-mind don't get things done, and do so faster, with greater ease, and with higher spirits than you?

And then there is the wide ranging, and extremely important fact, that being active is the only way that we can serves others. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure - I didn't say don't be active. I said don't be active just for the sake of tiring yourself out so that you can rest.

Do you think that these people have never ruminated, been preoccupied, or obsessed? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not that they have never done it, since we're flawed human beings, all of us have failings. But yes, those people did make it a priority to avoid rumination and obsession. Preoccupation on the other hand is usually a good thing. Rumination and obsession are most often negative (though in some very limited amounts they could be seen as indifferent or even good).

These are the symptoms of anxiety, which you seem to associate with the monkey mind. And you think that these are symptoms of illness? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think for the most part rumination and obsession are symptoms of illness (or illnesses themselves), yes. This article talks about the benefits of breaking free of rumination, which is clearly treated as a disorder:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201508/the-brain-mechanics-rumination-and-repetitive-thinking

So no, someone cannot be superior to another because of ruminative behaviour or obsessions. Where's your evidence that ruminative behaviour and obsessions are productive, healthy, high-functioning or good?! That seems to be only YOUR idea, not the idea of scientists, doctors, and researchers. Really, your lack of knowledge in this area seems to me to be appalling.

That's contradictory,coming from the one who keeps telling me to do philosophy from experience rather than from what I have read. — Metaphysician Undercover

I said you ought to do both, not just rely on the one.

Now you need to put down the Crack pipe... — Posty McPostface

Why? They are purposefully trying to lynch Trump in order to promote their left-wing bias, because they cannot get over the fact that the Democrats lost the election. There's nothing true in these accusations, all lies.

Excellent news!

In response to you saying that I said that, I can only say, you're very strange and you're a liar. — Metaphysician Undercover

So you tell me, you tell TimeLine, you tell fdrake that we ought not to talk about the pathological anxiety, because that's a complicated phenomenon, we ought to talk about the normal one, and I'm the liar? Yeah right...

I didn't say, nor imply that I was talking about "being always active". Portraying this as "always active" is just a lie. Being "always active" would mean not getting any rest or relaxation. Since this is not the case, then by what logic do you conclude that being active produces "no control over when you rest and relax". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, you're always active, until you have no energy left, and you can relax. That's what I meant. That's not good.

I see what you might call benefits of meditation, but I don't see any comparisons to the benefits of the monkey mind, so I think that your little advertisement is rather pointless. If we went to compare the benefits of the monkey mind, we'd come up with a completely different list of benefits. By what principle would we compare one set of good qualities against another set of good qualities, to say which is better, unless one set beat out the other hands down. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are no benefits to monkey-mind - what makes you think there are? Why do you think people work so hard to get rid of it?

That's not surprising, because you don't seem to be a highly functional human being. I, for one, practise all of these, preoccupation being very similar to obsession, which means highly focused. And rumination means to be thoughtful. So by experiencing these simple mental practises, I have eliminated the first four of your supposed benefits of meditation as being no different than the benefits provided by the monkey mind. The only thing left is the final one "less stress and anxiety". I remove stress by converting it to anxiety. Now the only benefit you show from meditation is the removal of anxiety. Why would I want to remove anxiety when it's a good which provides me with all these benefits that you have listed, plus a whole lot more, such as all the things which I accomplish with my increased activity, and the joy I get from this. I think your meditation is beaten, hands down. — Metaphysician Undercover

Put down the crack pipe. I honestly have no clue what you're smoking now, but it must be potent. So according to your silly logic, highly functioning human beings like Steve Jobs, Admiral Stockdale, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Miyamoto Musashi, and so on aren't really highly functioning because they have taken control over the monkey mind. What nonsense. You should read some more.

Yeah, if that is a threat then you have more problems then you think. — TimeLine

Yeah, you threatened to stop talking to me, so I stopped first just to annoy you ;) ;) ;) After all, it would be a shame if TimeLine can stop talking to Agustino, but Agustino can't stop talking to TimeLine >:O

so I am going to ask you one last time before I stop responding to you, read what I am attempting to convey and respond accordingly. — TimeLine

Okay, then the conversation can end, I don't have conversations with people who threaten me :D

2. All Metaphysical statements are meaningful - In this case the statement "only statements that can be verified with respect to scientific evidence ought to be considered meaningful" must itself be meaningful, being as you point out a metaphysical statement itself.
3. Some metaphysical statements are meaningful, others are not - In this case, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the metaphysical statement "only statements that can be verified with respect to scientific evidence ought to be considered meaningful" is meaningful and all others are not. — Pseudonym

This does not follow nor does it address the problem raised by Wayfarer.

"Only statements that can be verified with respect to scientific evidence ought to be considered meaningful" is self-contradictory. This statement itself cannot be considered meaningful since it cannot be verified with respect to scientific evidence. And that's true regardless of whether you accept position (2) or (3). The only way to escape this is to employ special pleading and say that "Only statements (except the present one) which can be verified with respect to scientific evidence ought to be considered meaningful", which is fallacious.

These sound like your arguments about God ;)

(At least that's what George told me to say). — Baden

Yeah, my instructions also arrived by mail. George is old-fashioned, hasn't really learned about e-mail yet >:O

God help us if Soros and his corporations get control of the Internet. — charleton

>:O >:O >:O >:O >:O

Soros and his ilk are scared of loosing control, his fears have nothing to do with democracy has he has no interest in it, or promoting it. — charleton

If you think anyone has control in such a complex and highly globalised world, you're fooling yourself. Control is more and more difficult as time goes on, and individual people, regardless of who they are, no longer really have control.

I think this thread should be closed as propaganda.

George Soros is a reputable philosopher who has made a fortune in finance and has written on philosophical issues too (check his concept of reflexivity and how he ties it with Hegel). He does have some dubious influence through the Soros foundation on the side of left-wing propaganda, but I think people are exaggerating his impact.