Are we on the same page? I'm being somewhat Devil's advocate here... — Baden

I think we are, but I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time, nor the last.

:wink:

I know he refused to open the exchanges. That's what I was saying. Instead, the uninsured can go to the hospital, get treated for COVID for free and the hospital will be reimbursed at Medicare rates as they would be in a Medicare for all situation. Are we on the same page? I'm being somewhat Devil's advocate here, but it's a case of Trump outflanking establishment Democrats to the left and if they keep letting him do that, he'll win easily in November. — Baden

That's precisely the sort of characterization that is misleading in the sense of it diverts the focus away from socialism saving the day and changes it to who gets credit for making sure the uninsured aren't financially harmed by Covid 19. The same may happen when it comes to all the other socialist measures that have been and will continue to be put into place in order minimize the inevitable harm to Americans.

No one will state the case as it is...

Socialist measures save the day.

There is no medicare for all... even now...

He did refuse to open the exchanges.

So the Democrats wanted Trump to open up more Obamacare exchanges so the uninsured could buy COVID healthcare insurance, and he said, fuck it, they can have it for free, i.e. Medicare for all for the uninsured. You know, the thing Dems thought would make Bernie unelectable. Am I missing anything — Baden

That's a slight mischaracterization of a few things actually...

Socialist measures are fixing the economic crisis... or stabilizing it at the least...

The irony. The ignorance. The media puppets.

Joe Biden is actually bragging about being in charge of the oversight regarding how the '08 stimulus bill was spent... as if that was admirable???

:brow:

Talk about revisionist history...

That's nothing to brag about if we look at what actually happened.

:zip:

Where's Bernie?

Let that man speak to a national audience in prime time...

↪Baden What's with the logarithmic scale? (technically that scale would flatten any curve i think). — VagabondSpectre

I was thinking the same thing...

The knowledge on this is no longer in question...

You are literally not helping others, protecting others, or soothing any suffering by hiding in your house. You are hiding. You have retreated. You have cowered. — NOS4A2

There is a fine line between courage and stupidity. The above overtly implies that self quarantine is cowardly, and not doing so is courageous.

I'm reminded of the ignorance behind "the cure cannot be worse than the disease" where the cure is quarantine.

Not doing so is stupid because it increases the possibility for harming others. It spreads the disease.

The key in understanding the role that truth plays in all thought, belief, and statements thereof(including but not necessarily limited to expectations(prediction)... is... I think... taking proper account of the common denominator... thought or belief.

That's what can be be true(or not), but not all of them...
— creativesoul
Somewhere down the line I became accustomed to using the term "judgment" to indicate the thing that's said to be true or false in a wide range of contexts, even in some cases where there is no linguistic expression, even in some cases where there is no language. — Cabbage Farmer

In short, judgment is a metacognitive endeavor and as such it requires pre-existing thought and belief, and the ability/faculty for thinking about thought and belief and/or reports/accounts thereof.

"Judgment", on my view, refers to quite a complex thought or belief process. It is to assent/dissent to some statement or other, which involves focused deliberation and/or contemplation of whether or not some thought or belief, as expressed by the statement thereof, is true/false. Done well, it includes knowing what it would take in order for the statement under consideration to be so, in addition to knowing whether or not such conditions have been or could be met. As such, it requires language use replete with the ability to think about thought and belief itself in addition to some awareness and/or knowledge of which ones can be true(are truth-apt) and what makes them so. As a result, I find that judgment is not even possible for language less creatures, whereas some other kinds of thought and belief most certainly are.

It may be this habit of mine has been influenced by talk among philosophers of "perceptual judgment".

I'm content to say that beliefs, judgments, assertions, and thoughts that resemble such things, are among the things we call true or false. — Cabbage Farmer

It's commonplace for philosophers to talk of perception in ways that I reject. The term itself is a catch-all which is often used in ways that conflate simple and complex thought or belief with each other. This shows itself throughout history by subsuming simple language less thought and belief as well as very complex linguistically informed thought and belief into the same category. In doing so the crucial distinction between kinds of thought and belief is lost along with the ability to properly account for them. Be that as it may..

Perhaps saying that beliefs, judgments, assertions, and thoughts are among the things we call "true" or "false" is as good a starting point as any.

I might say some thoughts do not resemble assertions and have no truth value; it depends on how we decide to use the word "thought". Perhaps I leave this undetermined in my own use of the term, to accommodate the wide variety of uses I encounter in the speech of others. — Cabbage Farmer

Perfectly understandable, and I would agree that not all thoughts(thought) are(is) truth apt without hesitation. The very notion of "truth value" causes me serious pause however...

It seems truth value is also implicated in the distinction between perception and misperception. Perhaps we should say it's the "perceptual judgment" involved in an instance of perception or misperception that bears the truth value?

...as does the idea of bearing truth value.



I'll attend to the rest of your reply later. It takes an interesting path and deserves separation from the above part.

Beliefs can be used as truthbearers — frank

Well, from what I remember about the notion(the academic one), I do not agree with the notion of "truthbearer"...

But yes, not that I care, but I've been called an anti-realist. Do not think that my position aligns with any of the well trodden academic names though. Actually, I know it doesn't, but it makes no difference to me.

Events are currently showing all of us how important thought, belief, meaning and truth are...

We don't fabricate these values out of whole cloth. — Cabbage Farmer

Exactly.

True and false belief exist in their entirety long before we become aware of them.

If Martha Stewart deserved prison time...

I was reading about this earlier. It happens across party lines and it's very glaring. — BitconnectCarlos

Why do you think that neither party wants Bernie?

Sickening.

Trump says by Easter, he hopes to have all the churches open and everything going again...

His expert said he came from a perspective of hope... then went on to explain how the scientific perspective was different...

Have not seen the foremost expert on infectious diseases since!

:zip:

#Nodissidentsallowed

I hope this government gets it right this time around...

What would Bernie do?

I trust him.

:wink:

When profit is the sole motive, it comes at the direct expense of everything else.

Sometimes an expectation we have, or an outcome we conceive ahead of time, is fulfilled in the course of events; other times the course of events runs contrary to that expectation or conceived outcome. We recognize this distinction in experience. It is reflected in our talk of truth and falsehood. — Cabbage Farmer

Yup.

Predictions, in particular, are verified/falsified in just the same manner. Of course, we develop expectations long before we can begin performing experiments to test our predictive powers. That's just one part of it all though.

Expectations can become true(or not). Statements about what has already happened and/or is currently happening are already true(or not).

The key in understanding the role that truth plays in all thought, belief, and statements thereof(including but not necessarily limited to expectations(prediction)... is... I think... taking proper account of the common denominator... thought or belief.

That's what can be be true(or not), but not all of them...

Expectations, while they definitely consist of thought and belief, are not true or false - nor can they be - because they are about what has not yet happened. They are thought and belief about what's to come. They are thought and belief about future events; what's going to happen.

Expectations/predictions cannot be either true or false because there are no states of affairs for them to correspond to(or not). That particular time has not yet come/arrived.

P is the proposition that there were dinosaurs during the Triassic. Even if a sentence that expresses P was never uttered at any time, P would still be truth-apt.

This is realism. Notice the cost of it. — frank

If that is realism, carte blanche, then I'm certainly no realist. Statements do not express propositions. They express thought and belief. There are no exceptions.

Propositions consist of words about stuff. There are no exceptions.

States of affairs are not propositions. States of affairs are what has happened and/or is currently happening. Propositions are about states of affairs.

"Proposition" is a name that we've given to a variety of different things.

Some things named existed in their entirety prior to our name, while others... well... not so much.

"Truth" is also - perhaps most often - used as a name.

As skirted around above... The interesting part of examining names is taking proper account of that which is being given the name. Some things named exist in their entirety prior to the name. Others do not.

"Truth" the term, when used to name correspondence between thought and belief about what's happened and/or is happening and what's happened and/or is happening is being used to pick out a relationship between thought or belief and reality(states of affairs) that exists in it's entirety prior to the term itself.

Thought or belief and statements thereof can be true. Correspondence between thought or belief and states of affairs is precisely what makes them true. A lack thereof, is precisely what makes them false. Let me digress...

The problem with the notion of "propositions" is that they do not offer adequate enough account of meaning and what it consists of. For if they did, they would know that meaning is not the sort of thing that can be carried.

The reason why several languages express the same thing - called "a proposition" by those who do not know better - is because we share a world and what's being expressed in different languages is nothing more than talking about the same things.

Venus.

The thing is, the crisis is with Main Street, not Wall Street. — BitconnectCarlos

:brow:

No, but it doesn't particularly matter. This isn't some grand conspiracy. — StreetlightX

It doesn't seem like some grand conspiracy to me either. Just many nefarious agents all doing what's allowed. I'm just attempting to get some questions answered.

If it is not a matter of public record, then what's stopping a corporation from buying back most of it's own stock at a higher price for the sole purpose of convincing others that it's value has increased?

In uncertain times a lot of investors like to invest in more stable investments and are prepared to "take a loss". — Benkei

So... hypothetically, such an investor could sell off all his airline stock at a lower price than the current market value, or would those lower prices be the new share price?

So, it all started somewhere and snowballed. Who first began dumping huge numbers of shares at a lower price, and who is buying them? Is this a matter of public record?

:brow:

What difference does it make how many shares are being sold/bought, so long as they are?
— creativesoul

What matters is the price that they are being bought and sold at. — StreetlightX

Right. That's what I'm asking about, but I'm not asking for generalities. I have a strong interest in this.

What and/or who determines the selling price?

In the world that I live in the seller does that, and only drops the purchase/sales price if they see fit for whatever reason. That reason is never ever to intentionally reduce profitability or consumer confidence. That reason is never to sell my product as a means to render my customer at a financial loss.

That would be a public disservice.

In the world I live in, the seller cannot buy back half of their own product(half of what they've recently sold) in order to use that sales information(including the higher sales price) as a tool for convincing potential buyers to believe that the value of the product is higher than it is. This creates an illusion of more customer/consumer demand than there actually is.

That is a deliberate deception. Fraud. A public disservice.

Colonel Sanders cannot buy back my bucket of chicken as well as all my neighbors' for a dollar more than we paid, and then go on to use that information to convince us and others that there has been an increase in the value of the bucket of chicken, based upon an increase in sales(demand) only then to sell it back to us for more.

People are still buying, but they are buying at lower and lower prices. Reciprocally, sellers are selling at lower prices too. It's not the volume or rate of shares traded ('more buying and selling') that makes the difference, but how much people are will to pay and to acquire stocks. — StreetlightX

You make it sound as if the buyer is driving and/or establishing the actual share(selling) price. Is that a misreading?

The rough reason they are dropping is that people are worried about the profitability of the companies they hold shares in, which is dropping across the board because are people no longer spending money on things (like flights, entertainment, retail, etc). People not spending money = no profits. No profits = no return on investments in stocks = better to unload (sell) those stocks.

Someone is spending money, because someone is buying the stocks at a discounted price. What I want to know is who what when where and how is the market price set to begin with?

How can so many people be selling if there are no buyers. There cannot, and unless I'm mistaken, a seller does not have to sell at a discounted price...

So, it all started somewhere and snowballed. Who first began dumping huge numbers of shares at a lower price, and who is buying them? Is this a matter of public record?

Bubbles are structural imbalances in the market... — Benkei

That's putting it mildly...

What determines the huge drop in value?

In this current dramatic drop, the explanation is often that everyone is dumping stocks... everyone is selling. But, I'm confused here... there cannot be a seller without a buyer, and if someone is buying all the shares being sold, then how are they losing value? What difference does it make how many shares are being sold/bought, so long as they are? How does more selling and buying result in an overall drop in value?

Are the shares being sold at discount prices; below the current stock value? If not, then what reason is there for the value to drop?

Someone please explain this to me. — creativesoul

It's a market.There are buyers, but shares are changing hands at much lower prices due to the loss of confidence and the fear of economic downturn. What determines the value of shares is a dark art but the bottom line is that they reflect the company's perceived value in terms of current sales and prospects. — Wayfarer

Hey Jeep!

I'm remain hesitant to use the notion of 'dark art'. However, there is something very suspicious about it all.

One of the factors is that the stock market has been inflated by the injection of 'cheap money' as a consequence of very low interest rate regime which has held sway since the 2008 crisis. This has arguably resulted in a massive bubble or over-valuation of stocks, which has now been thoroughly deflated by the appearance of a global pandemic. This pandemic is going to have huge economic consequences with many businesses, large and small, collapsing or going into hibernation, and possibly millions of jobs lost. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I appreciate the view you're presenting here but there's nothing about it that answers the direct questions I'm on about. Seems might be able to give me some answers that I'm looking for.

Watch that clip above...

There is genuine reason to be concerned... Unfortunately, even though it clearly shows how unreliable the economy(wall street) is as a pillar of US lives and livelihood, that will not even be discussed nor will it be changed to something like as much self-sufficiency as possible which is what a real robust economy looks like.

This pandemic would look very different if it did not affect/effect everyone... financially.

Yay globalism!

Prosecutors claim that the Russians were essentially able to evade accountability and punishment while taking advantage of the discovery process to potentially harm U.S. national security.

...

The Concord companies sought to fight the indictment in court, unlike the other Russians charged by Mueller. In doing so, prosecutors say they were able to "obtain discovery" from the U.S. government regarding its efforts to "detect and deter foreign election interference" — while also ignoring court-issued subpoenas.

So the secret is to break the law in such a way that the government can't prosecute you without hurting itself. Good to know. — Michael

Same playbook Trump has been using... to expose him will expose so many others throughout history who've basically done the same things...

I explicated upon this... pages and pages back... maybe a year ago... it's the only explanation for why they haven't done anything despite clearly illegal behaviour, mainly regarding the emoluments clause.

Corruption is rampant.

Too kind. I may have told myself to fuck off!

:wink:

I'm a little angrier than usual nowadays. Again, my apologies. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

By the way, you were right. After I reread our exchanges, I definitely did come off as being an asshole...

My apologies.

:flower:

I'm arguing that what you said, given the context, has misleading implications. The discussion was centered on presidential elections. Making general comments about polling is fine, but why announce general skepticism and the importance of questioning them given this specific context? What is the implication there? We know how well the presidential polls have faired -- they have a long history, plenty of good scholarship on them.

So I guess the real question is ere you denying what *I* said was true? If not, your comment is fairly trivial and poorly timed. — Xtrix

Well, that's certainly understandable. No. I'm not denying that presidential polling is accurate. Rather, I'm wondering to what extent the polling is itself influenced by virtue of the participant selection process and the framing of the questions... which, in turn, makes me wonder to what extent the actual election is influenced by the same. Nothing trivial about that at all... given both, the timing and the context...

Would different questions being asked change both outcomes, the poll and the election?

I think it could and often does. Group think. Indoctrination. Etc. I think Jung called it the collective conscious, or words to that affect/effect. That's a legitimate vein of thought...especially in this context. I think you'd agree.

An understanding of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is a kind of philosophy. — Pfhorrest

No, it's not. At least, not in the case currently under consideration.

I agree that five year olds often have a pretty good intuition for that kind of thing...

Invoking the notion of intuition offers no help here. Muddies the waters.

Five year olds know when "the cup is in the cupboard" is true or not. They can look for themselves. They do so in order to check and see for themselves. We can watch these events happen again and again. They do not have what it takes to do philosophy. They are not doing a kind of philosophy. They are showing a clear undeniable understanding regarding what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so.

Thus, the claim quoted at the top of this post is not true.

I'm denying that we can know for certain, especially prior to any philosophizing, which statements are the true ones and which are the false ones. — Pfhorrest

I never made that claim, but could easily argue for it.

One can easily know that the statement "the cup is in the fridge" is true or not long prior to any ability to do philosophy.

A good philosophy gives you a way to tell which statements are the true ones and which are the false ones. — Pfhorrest

An understanding of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so gives you a way to tell which statements are the true ones and which are the false ones.

There is no need for philosophy here. Five year olds have such an understanding.


Good philosophy includes the strongest possible justificatory ground. True statements are such things. Do you agree?

Take undeniably true statements. Use them as a means to discriminate between different philosophies.
— creativesoul

How do you know what statements are undeniably true? Isn’t that a philosophical question?... — Pfhorrest

It's called one. It is a question that is placed into the category of being a philosophical one. Your question involves metacognition. Truth does not. True belief does not. Both exist prior to their namesake, as do undeniably true statements.

So, what sense does it make to ask me about the kind of questions you're asking me?

:brow:

Talking about questions is not equivalent to good philosophy. Knowing the kinds of questions one is asking is a part of good philosophy, however, not just any talk about any questions will do here.

True statements are imperative to good philosophy.

Do you agree?



There are undeniably true statements. Those are the most reliable strongest ground upon which to judge whether relevant claims are true as well, particularly when they are mutually exclusive claims.

Do you agree?



You're asking me about my knowledge regarding undeniably true statements, and then asking me what kind of question that is...

:brow:

I'm talking about true statements as though there are such things. Are you denying that there are? If so, lose the "undeniable" qualifier. It's unnecessary and may be causing confusion bearing the same name. So...


Are you denying that there are true statements?

Seems kind of circular to then base your means of discerning truth on something you discern to be true based on... what means exactly?

This is confused. It does not follow from anything I've written. It's not an accurate report of anything I've written.

I updated my criterion a bit, and it doesn't take 80,000 words.

Where is it found lacking?

You have just been an asshole. — Relativist

Of that... I very well may be guilty. Hard to tell in this medium.

I thought I made it clear that my issue is not you personally... but rather... my issue is how and why you've come to believe what you have. Public disservices... commonly held false beliefs...

Here's some other things about me:

I grew up poor. My dad was a cook in a diner, my mom was a grocery store clerk. I was able to go to college because my father was over 65, and at the time, there was a social security benefit for children of retirees if they were in college (Reagan killed this BTW). I knew college was my way out of poverty, so I took advantage of my opportunity and got a degree in a field that was well-paying. The job opportunities in Houston are predominantly in the oil business. I have no regrets. The object of the game was to get out of poverty. I did. What's wrong with that? Is that not part of your vision? — Relativist

Nothing at all wrong with that. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

I never forgot where I came from, and how I got out of it: government assistance, and I'm both angered and saddened that the opportunities available to me to climb out of poverty have disappeared. Cost of college and health care are barriers that keep the poor chained to their circumstances. — Relativist

We share the same concerns here.

Bernie's looking good in this debate. I don't see it changing things, but I'm glad it happened. — Xtrix

There is enough footage to stitch together the big picture...

Leaders need good judgment.

Biden showed a lack thereof during the debate tonight when he did not recognize that one can point out something good in another foreign government without condoning everything about it. This tied to another... his accusing Bernie of using a republican talking point(canard). The tie is one of double standards. Joe's narrative regarding Cuba closely resembled the earlier piece of propaganda put forth here by the vampire.

Biden's record shows that he judged incorrectly during key times on key pieces of legislation. Joe is part of the problem... and has been.

Good leaders are right at the time. Joe had to come around to it later.

Joe talks all about what he's gonna do to help eliminate/resolve problems that he himself helped to create by virtue of being wrong at the time. He says he's going to do something to correct his own mistakes of past...

Yes, because you assume that the company that employed me (note the past tense; I'm retired) defines my political ideology... — Relativist

I assumed nothing of the sort. To quite the contrary, that was a conclusion... your being employed by the oil industry explained all the common misconceptions that were grounding your opinion regarding electability. It made perfect sense how and why one would believe what you do...

...according to your participation here..

No, the reality is that polling is and has been very accurate indeed. There are bad polling sources, but the credible ones have been consistent for decades. We're talking here about presidential elections. — Xtrix

Are you denying that what I wrote is true?

He just shed light upon the history of Biden as it pertained to everyday Americans... as well os less fortunate ones. He's yet to have mentioned what could be...

He's hinted at it though.

Doesn't look like he will run as an independent though. So... nevermind that idea.

Is there an over-riding means of evaluating which is better than the others? — A Seagull

Take undeniably true statements. Use them as a means to discriminate between different philosophies.