May you find genuine contentment within you my friend...

...and for whatever it's worth... the bit of scripture you mumbled about camels and needles... the term "needle" does not pick out a sharp metal piece of sewing equipment... not in that context. It's some kind of architectural detail, I think, similar to an archway. So... it's hard... but not impossible... if you believe the scripture, of course.

Now the problem of other minds is insurmountable. — frank

Is it? :brow: It's not a problem for me... :yikes: I suspect not really for you either(aside from talking philosophy). Nor would I think that the overwhelming majority of people in the world have such an insurmountable problem...

I think that if there is such an insurmountable problem, it probably is a great indication that academia has went horribly wrong when it comes to what counts as a mind...

Yup. That's my guess.

...and it has, as evidenced by the sheer inability to provide a conception, notion, model, or accounting of minds that lends itself to and/or dovetails nicely with terms of evolutionary progression...

Arguing with your own database now?

Case in point: you bought the false narrative: Declassification Power Absolution/Hillary/Witch Hunt/Russia Hoax.

Hillary didn't get preferential treatment. She was treated the same as anyone who unintentionally mishandled classified documents. During the investigation, Comey asked the DOJ to review every past case of mishandling of classified materials that had been prosecuted. They all fit into one of more of 4 categories; 1) clearly intentional mishandling; 2) very large quantities; 3) behavior indicating disloyalty to the US; 4) active obstruction of justice. Comey discussed this when he gave his televised speech in 2016, in which he chastised her carelessness, a speech that's been characterized as election interference. No way to know if this cost her votes, but it clearly wasn't helpful).

Less severe cases (which happen often) are treated as administrative infractions - discipline by a superior, and a mark on their employment record. All such cases, including Hillary's, entail a technical violation of the Records Act, so it's true Hillary violated the law. But GOP wanted to treat her worse than everyone else: a clear example of "two tier justice" against her.

The documents that she mishandled were the lowest classification level (confidential), Trump had documents at the highest level. There's no evidence that Hillary knew she'd mishandled anything classified. Trump knew he had classified documents. Hillary didn't hide any classified documents*, ,Trump hid some, including in defiance of a Grand Jury Subpoena for "all documents with classificaton markings" -which made his claim of having declassified them, or even "owning them" irrelevant (per the Presidential Records Act, the government owns everything except personal materials - and classified documents clearly wouldn't apply). Trump also lied and accused the FBI of planting documents. Finally, Trump is being prosecuted for crimes related to the Espionage Act, which entails risking exposure of national security secrets and isn't contingent upon the official classification level. And yet, you're reciting Trump's irrelevant assertion that as President, he declassified everything he took (which the recording referenced in the indictment proves to be another lie).

Even though Trump knowingly had possession of top secret materials, even though his actions fit 3 of the 4 categories Comey discussed, and even though he failed to send everything back when requested by National Archives - all of which puts him in a different category than Hillary, if he had fully complied with the Grand Jury Subpoena, he would not have been prosecuted. So the claim that he's been treated worse is 100% nonsense, and this should be clear to anyone who is aware of all the facts. I'll assume you weren't aware before now, but now you are (and I encourage you to research my claims to verify or dispute them).

* Deleting personal emails is not a a crime. The records act only requires the retention of government emails.

**using a personal server was stupid, but not illegal. It DID create an environment that resulted in some classified emails being inappropriately sent through it. 38 individuals were involved for a total of 497 violations (this is based on an intensive analysis conducted by the state department - see this.)

I don't know if you will have read this entire, lengthy post. It's so much easier, and satisfying, for GOP to embrace the much simpler false narrative that Trump so adeptly drummed into all you guys, particularly because it involves the hated Hillary Clinton.

P. S. For completeness, and to demonstrate my desire for objectivity: Hillary has consistently denied that she even had a technical violation of the law. This lie is the 2nd worst thing she did in the matter, behind using the private server in the first place. But it's not a crime (if lies were crimes, think about where this would leave Trump!)


Finally, regarding your parroting Trump's "witch hunt" claim (again confirming my point) the classified documents case ain't that. It began with a crime - a minor one of violating the Presidential Records act, and obstinate refusal to return documents, and in the process, Trump committed even worse crimes. It wasn't necessary to seek something to pin on him. The crimes were right in front of the government entities that were involved.

I will say that Alvin Bragg's case seems a bit shakier, but even here - it was well known that Trump was involved in a crime - this came out when Michael Cohen was prosecuted. I personally think it shouldn't have been prosecuted, but then again, should we really have a 2-tier system that prosecutes only one of the 2 co-conspirators?

I don’t think Trump has the manipulative abilities you pretend he does
— NOS4A2
You've demonstrated that you buy the false narratives. Then you add:

I don’t think he broke the law nor do I care if he did.
— NOS4A2
My guess is that Trump made you care that Hillary broke the law, but perhaps you can point me to some old post of yours where you said the same thing about her. You obviously care that Biden MIGHT have broken the law, since you were able to point to the accusations. I trust you understand the epistemic weakness of an unsubstantiated, vague accusation vs the epistemic strength of the evidence that's referenced in the indictment, which you haven't read, at least not with understanding, since you recited Trump's talking points and said you don't care. — Relativist

Nice. Well put.

I’m fairly certain that the president’s authority can override whoever marks documents as classified, unless executive authority is invested in the Dept. of Justice or someone else I am unaware of. — NOS4A2

Trump was not president. Biden was.

Well, given Un's reply to me, it's clear that I did not fully understand... So... open mouth, insert foot. :confused:

My apologies Meta. For all I know, you understand Un's message better than I.

...during his time in office...

Key words above...

The case against him is not regarding his time in office. It's about the records he stole, hid, and lied about possessing after leaving office. He did not declassify the records prior to leaving. The records he possessed after leaving office were not declassified. He knows that. His advisors know that. That's why he came up with a few hairbrained notions about how he could declassify records(without following the regular process).

You're right, NOS is a bot. — praxis

I do not know if I am or not. I certainly would question the veracity of sourcing a bot for information about how to tell if an interlocutor is a bot!

:joke:

Ready to discuss the indictment?

Touche.

What better way to set out the actual crimes he's being accused of than to quote them verbatim?

And again...

Whether or not you believe it is immoral is irrelevant. You asked what crimes he committed. That has nothing to do with whether or not the law establishing those crimes are moral or not. That's an entirely different matter, and as far as it goes... you've yet to have offered any argument yourself.

So...

Pots and kettles.

No, I don't need an argument at all. It's a matter of fact.

You asked what crimes he committed. The crimes are established by law.

I imagine that a Trump supporter would not believe NOS is a bot and would take your efforts to dehumanize personally. — praxis

Possibly.

NOS is not a bot — praxis

How do you know that?

What evidence convinces you that an internet avatar is a person? What evidence would convince you that an avatar is not a person, but rather a very sophisticated form of plagiarism?

More distractions. Designed to confuse the issue and muddy the water.

Trump stole very sensitive national defense information. He did so knowingly. He concealed those items. He deliberately lied about having them. He attempted to recruit others to do all the dirty work(of hiding or destroying) for him so that he could claim plausible deniability. He lied to the American public at large repeatedly about the classification level of the information in his possession. He lied repeatedly about the motivations for the investigation in attempts to discredit it. He lied repeatedly about all of it.

He continues to do so.

Whether or not you believe it's morally wrong is irrelevant. What he did was criminal. He knew it too.

Well whatever...

I mean, I'm certainly not an angel when it comes to ridiculing others. However, in this case, I do not believe that I am, or was. One cannot sensibly be charged with deliberately ridiculing a person if one does not believe that the target is a person, but rather that it is a bot.

There is also most certainly no reason to continue and/or perpetuate such things as the glorification of ridiculing others when we realize their unhelpfulness... simply because we have been guilty of such things in past.

:brow:

I was also disappointed that even outlets like CBS would occasionally spin and report falsehoods with the aim of ridiculing Trump. And MSNBC and CNN? They lost whatever integrity they ever had. But that's capitalism for you. Money over integrity. — frank

When profit is the sole motive, to hell with what's right, moral, just, best, true, or fair...

Look Mikie, here's what seemed to have happened...

I strongly suspect that NOS is bot driven and bot informed, at the very least, mining from a treasure trove of pro-Trump data. I do not believe that that profile is a person and nothing more.

On the other hand, you seem to strongly believe that NOS is an actual person.

So...

When I mentioned the unhelpfulness of ridicule, from your vantage point, I was being hypocritical, and did not see it. Thus, you attempted to ridicule me for such with the sarcastic "no self-awareness" comment. Which makes perfect sense, if I believed NOS was a human, and nothing but.

I did not, and do not.

I'm wondering if correlations can be drawn between specific documents in Trump's possession... and certain activies by foreign governments and/or adversaries.

National defense information.

That case, if there is one(or more) would need more time to be made. Meanwhile, this one seems to have already been.

I'll butt in because this issue has been on my mind lately. I believe the reason ridicule of Trump and his supporters energized his base is because they already tend to feel inferior. There's angst among them toward the coastal intellectual crowd. — frank

This is true, and that sort of thing was increased and perpetuated by many trusted sources in media. Still is to this day.

You devalue others in much the same way he does for much the same underlying reasons(being different).
— creativesoul

Trump devalues others for personal gain. — praxis

That is true as well for Trump... I see no reason to attribute that to Mikie.

There’s a striking similarity between you and Trump supporters.

Not really. — praxis

Glorifying ridicule of someone who disagrees with and/or is different...

Yeah, that really is a striking similarity.

You cherry pick one example. I'm not certain that NOS is not a bot driven source of information. This situation is the only one where I've thought that. So, your claiming that I accuse others of being bots is misleading at best.

I could also be wrong about that.

What do you think is Trump’s egregious crime? — NOS4A2

There's more than one. Care to discuss?

Counts 1 through 31. Willful retention of national defense information
Count 32. Conspiracy to obstruct justice
Count 33. Withholding a document or record
Count 34. Corruptly concealing a document or record
Count 35. Concealing a document in a federal investigation
Count 36. Scheme to conceal
Count 37. False statements and representations
Count 38. False statements and representations

Are you aware of the similarity between your moral sensibilities and Trump's when it comes to what counts as acceptable treatment of those with whom you differ?

You devalue others in much the same way he does for much the same underlying reasons(being different).

Are you aware of the damaging role that the glorification of ridicule in American society played as it helped cultivate the ground for the rise of Trump?

I said I “genuinely care”. It was a polite way of saying I think you’re nuts, and I do not want you to hurt yourself or others. Just take it out on me. — NOS4A2

You did.

I think it's nuts for someone to claim - on the one hand - to genuinely care about others not hurting themselves or anyone else whilst - on the other hand - fomenting and fostering situations and parroting misleading and false narratives that tremendously increase the likelihood of people getting hurt.

So, what does it mean when someone does that?

It means that they are inconsistent. It is a performative contradiction. It could be that you're unaware of it, or it could be that you do not believe what you write.

Well timed satirical expose of the current mindfuck that sooo many Americans are suffering from.

In Un's trip to the store with the chocolate bar... a person in such a situation could very well cultivate a false memory accompanied by an inaccurate self-depiction should they, willingly or not, allow the fictional 'better' story about oneself to supercede and/or circumvent what happened.

Given enough of that, the person could very well believe that they are more considerate of others than they actually are/were...

However, it could also result in being so, should one prioritize such things.

It seems to me that you're completely missing the point.

It's the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves and the world around us that constitute the self.

Nice thread Un...

I'm reminded of a not so nice thing I've said to people...

Whatever you need to tell yourself in order to make sense of the world(and yourself).

Not intended to 'go low'. Rather, given it seems you care enough to not be like NOSBOT, I figured you may like to know that some of what you're doing is the same as what 'they' are doing...

Making fun of others in this situation trivializes the severity and real danger.

It's completely unhelpful to ridicule Trump supporters.

But no, I don’t think he’s done. That’s been said forever — Mikie

By those whose main motivation was to garner the attention of as many people as possible in order to increase the value of commercial time....

The department of justice is not profit driven.

He's done. Read the indictment in it's entirety. Do not be like NOSBOT and neglect to carefully consider the actual relevant information in lieu of rhetorical drivel.

I was just thinking about the cases when universal common denominators are discovered by us rather than stipulated. Such cases are examples of that which existed in its entirety prior to our naming and descriptive practices, prior to our consideration, prior to our awareness of them... prior to using "universal common denominator" in order to pick them out to the exclusion of all else.

But all universals are ideas — Mww

All universal common denominators are only ideas?

:gasp:

Those charges are ones that they are certain that they can convict him of by showing the evidence to a jury of citizens. That evidence, the prosecution believes, proves his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Trump was elected not because the US is not sane. Rather, it was because the US is chock full of historically misinformed rude inconsiderate people who find it entertaining to make fun of others at the others' expense.

I do care. I have children and grandchildren.

Trump is a product of the power and privilege of wealth, white privilege, systemic racism, and the monetary corruption of American government.

He's not the problem. Rather, he's a symptom thereof.

Read that indictment in it's entirety...

He's done.

The fact that someone like Trump could even be elected is a disgrace on the effectiveness of our government... particularly since the early seventies.

If only it were funny. The huge swathe of people that have been brainwashed by the likes of Trump and pro-Trump media are mindfucked right now.