Sigh. As I said... you're a bit boring to have several years of graduate level philosophy. You've been talking in academic terms, so...

Since you asked to point out any fallacies...

Just after having denied being guilty of any logical fallacies and/or fallacious Reasoning, you immediately offer a non sequitur at best and an ad hominem at worst.

You're arguing against your own strawdogs my friend.

How do we know when the experts have been wrong?

How do we know when the experts have been wrong?

You're a bit boring - to me - to be an expert.
— creativesoul

On what planet is that the test of whether someone is an expert? — Bartricks

The same one where it makes sense to ask such a stupid question.

Did not work for me. No video. No audio.

Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

He said it himself: "I'm not an impartial juror." — ZzzoneiroCosm

Really?

:yikes:

No. Surely not.

There is more than enough adequate evidence for us to confidently conclude that Trump has acted and continues to act deliberately to the following end... stop any and all the investigations that he doesn't like.

If that does not count as adequate evidence to warrant charges and/or conclude the president is guilty of obstruction of congress, then nothing can.

It is that simple people.

There's another well established and readily verifiable pattern of Trump's behaviour that can be established. Strong arm tactics. Look at the suits he has filed, look at the agreements made, with and against people legally forbidding them to tell the truth.

A notable local reporter did a simple rough financial analysis of the Taj, saying that it is basically doomed to fail; that someone somewhere did not do the math. He did so quite publicly, and was quickly threatening with legal suit if he did not redress, apologize, and rescind... or something along those lines.

That guy was telling the truth.

Yeah. So you can just fuck off.

So touchy, probably because even you know your misinformation is bunk. — NOS4A2

Awww...

...and you're cute too? Make my heart flutter.

That's not me being touchy. That's me being frank.

Now you're mimicking yet another common behavioural pattern of those who offer Trumpian apologetics. The application of a double standard.

You're a bit boring - to me - to be an expert. A very talented rhetorician though. Gifted, perhaps, in the art of persuasion. A keen eye for using certain fallacious means at the appropriate time.

Or...

I'm overestimating your mental grasp upon the world, yourself, and your place in it. Could be that I have it wrong as well. Your participation on this forum could be the one activity that keeps you thinking positively about yourself. I mean, some folk find picking on other people to be an acceptable worthwhile ability/habit/personality trait.

Now, you're attempting to use the notion of "expert" as a means of what... exactly? Self comfort?

:kiss:

A rhetorical means of devaluing another person's thoughts on matters... matters of God notwithstanding...

Appeal to authority - "I'm an expert, and you're not" - "Experts are mistaken less often than non-experts" - "I'm an expert, and you're not" - is wrong for very good Reason.

:rofl:

As is poisoning the well.

“ However, Mueller did not allege any crimes directly connecting the two — that is, that Trump advisers criminally conspired with Russian officials to impact the election.

Other reported focuses of Mueller’s investigation — such as potential obstruction of justice by the Trump administration — also did not result in any charges.” — NOS4A2

Yet another prima facie example of misinformation...

The Mueller investigation would not charge anyone with anything. It was not in the purview. They did however find adequate evidence to warrant subsequent measures by the appropriate officials on several fronts, including obstruction by the president as well as cooperation of Trump family members and friends with foreign(enemy) entities for the expressed written purpose of gaining political advantage over a political opponent...

There's that pattern behaviour again...

Yeah. So you can just fuck off.

If it’s misinformation it should be easy to refute — NOS4A2

You're an idiot. There are a whole slew of claims that are known to be false but cannot be falsified. Knowing that allows us to also know that not all false claims can be falsified. Misinformation is not always false or falsifiable. Sometimes it can be true but irrelevant...

In any case... you're an idiot for suggesting that misinformation can be easily refuted.

Focus on the relevant facts.

I had one semester of senior-level philosophy. You?
— jgill

More, of course. — Bartricks

Proves beyond a reasonable doubt that one can be formally educated and be quite wrong, and thus not an expert... unless experts can be wrong... oh wait!

They can... and you are.

Executive privilege does not permit and/or allow a president to impede an investigation into his own possible unconstitutional/illegal behaviors, regardless of whether or not the president is guilty of the behaviours being investigated.

Trump has invoked executive privilege to impede investigations(constitutional processes). Again, the evidence for this is overwhelming, including Trump's own admission.

The Republican defense... — Wayfarer

Members of the Senate are not Trump's defense team. That is a problem. McConnell needs removed.

You're a fountain of misinformation.

There are two articles. The first is abuse of power. The second is obstruction of congress. Trump has shown a pattern of behaviour and openly publicly bragged about impeding the constitutional processes. That pattern goes back to the Mueller investigation.

He is guilty of intent to impede constitutional processes, as the overwhelming amount of evidence shows. He admits and brags about it. Arguing on procedural grounds is to deliberately and knowingly... purposefully conceal easily obtainable new evidence that is clearly relevant to both articles... both cases.

The Senate majority leader is knowingly concealing evidence from the investigation. There has been newly emerging information which certain persons who were an active part of the process under consideration are willing to testify at the Senate trial and in doing so claim to be introducing new evidence that has yet to have been introduced in any previous testimony.

That is the former National Security Advisor to the president.

Mitch McConnell cannot argue on procedural grounds in such urgent matters of national security. John Bolton resigned in bewilderment and/or befuddled. John Bolton's testimony must be heard. This is not some civil case where only a handful of people's lives and/or livelihoods are concerned. The prosecution has offered more than enough evidence to show that the defendant did everything in his power to conceal and hide his behaviours, including hiring an outside council to speak on his behalf about the relevant matters. Mr. Guiliani has openly admitted to more than enough behaviour to prove that president Trump was using unofficial means for conducting official business.

Not allowing necessary available relevant testimony is to knowingly conceal evidence. That is not acting impartially towards all the evidence regarding the case at hand. It is for these reasons that we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. McConnell is in gross dereliction of duty, and needs to be removed from office.

It all reeks of corruption.

It was never proven because it was never taken to court. — NOS4A2

This just doesn't carry much weight when viewed in light everyday facts and openly expressed public behaviour.

A court is not necessary to prove that Trump has done and still does everything within his power to stop any and all subsequent investigations into the 2016 election. He continues to make a concerted attempt to distract and derail the processes and the progress being made. He has done and continues to impede any and all investigations into his behaviour.

These are all constitutional processes, clearly demarcated in the US Constitution. He is not allowing the checks and balances to work as the framers intended. He is impeding the only recourse for removing an unwanted president. For some reason, the defense wants to say things like "The Senate is not on trial".

Well...

Not if it's doing it's job and acting impartially to the case, which means not already having made up one's mind before careful examination of all the relevant evidence.

Fer fuck's sake... it's sickening.

:vomit:

None of the prescriptions of Reason are issued by my mind (and that applies to you too, of course) — Bartricks

Rubbish.

If he does it long enough he may begin to believe his own crap. — praxis

That can and does happen.

Isn't there a missing premiss? Something like humans are the only entities with agency... then agency is only applicable to humans.

If that is the case, and firms have responsibility, then it is not the case that responsibility requires agency.

It makes no sense to think that any more evidence and/or testimony is needed. The obstruction charge has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. No one in their right mind would disagree. Trump has done everything in his power to stop the process.

He's jerking your chain...

Take a moment to reflect on what that actually means. — Bartricks

Why? What would the point be? I mean...

You are here to tell us what it means, even when it comes from another's pen.

Sigh...

Experts are generally specialized... They are often called "experts" in a field, in some specific 'domain of discourse', I suppose you could say. Either way, generally... experts are specialized...

...you like that?

:wink:

So...

An expert in a field(at a minimum) is familiar with the current knowledge base in that field. They well may also be familiar with the history of that field. One's expertise can be said to run parallel to one's knowledge of that field. An expert in metaphysics would be one who knows about 'metaphysics' as a subject matter.

But...

If the field has been wrong for centuries...

So too is the expert, usually. It's not always the case though. For example, an expert in metaphysics can reject much of the convention agreement of his/her time. Nonetheless... experts can be wrong.

In philosophy, it seems quite readily evident to me - when it comes to my forte - than many are.

Firms have properties like corporate personhood! Corporate persons can be legally responsible for things. That's a legal responsibility attributed to something which is not an agent. Update your metaphysics to accommodate this. — fdrake

:brow:

I was with you til the above...

How did you get there from where you were?

Do you agree with the following?

The best possible results are clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be in a representative form of government. I'm speaking about the United States, in particular, by the way.

:brow:

I am not sure you ever gave this definition. — ZhouBoTong

What else could it sensibly mean? As I argued already...

I only know that, for you, one indicator of a well functioning representative government is an increase in well being for most people. I would say that is one indicator of ANY well functioning government. — ZhouBoTong

For me?

Not all increases in general overall wellbeing are the result of well-functioning government. An increase in well being for most people can also happen when there is an oppressed minority.

So...

I am not saying that an overall increase in general welfare always indicates a properly implemented - or well functioning - representative form of government. That increase alone is utterly inadequate.

Representing an others best interest(s) is taking deliberate action aimed at increasing, protecting, and/or preserving(at a bare minimum) their quality of life. I am saying that we can know that that is not the case when the results can be shown to have unnecessarily caused harm to very large numbers of citizens while others reaped previously unimaginable financial rewards as a direct consequence of causing such harm. Those are some of the extremes.

I'm saying that when very large swathes of the general overall population can be shown to be much worse off than they were before certain pieces of legislation were enacted and it is undoubtedly a result of those pieces of legislation, then we have all the evidence we need to show that that government has failed the people.

It's no big secret how it came to be like this... in the states anyway.

Are you saying that a well functioning(properly implemented) representative form of government results in circumstances/situations where unacceptably high numbers of people are unnecessarily harmed, so long as more people are not?

:brow:

Surely this would be a mistake, and so if it were the case that actions had unforeseeable negative consequences upon too many people, such acts would be reversed, corrected, and/or otherwise redressed.

Right?



An increase in well being for most people can also happen when there is an oppressed minority. So... just because there is an over all increase in well being for most people, it does not mean that that government is an acceptable one or a well functioning one unless it's aim was to do as little as possible while still being able to point out some improvements in quality of life. But...

It takes more than just that to be a properly implemented representative form of government, such as the US has, or is supposed to have anyway. I hope we agree here...

Tomorrow.

:smile:

Any comparison to the likes of Hitler here is totally uncalled for. I would like to clearly state that. If the similarities arise to the extent that we are well grounding in drawing that comparison, then we've went well beyond racism.

If "villain" applies to both Hitler and some otherwise well intended all inclusive white person, it's language being misused and/or otherwise abused at best, and intentionally misleading language at worst. Seems to be a textbook example of equivocation. That always indicates self-contradiction somewhere along the logical spectrum.

Rhetorically useful. Moving to some. Convincing to others. Unacceptable to one who demands consistent... and thus clear meaningful terminological use.

Who said anything about a pass? We are just acknowledging that there are degrees of harm and badness? If I view myself in a light anywhere near to how I view Hitler...I should immediately kill myself. No question about it. Look at the impact he had on the world. If there is any chance of me being that, I should die to eliminate the possibility. What am I missing? — ZhouBoTong

If you were him you would not view yourself as the villain, so if you were that, you would have no reason - in your own mind, that is - to flip your own off switch.

People don't want to think of themselves as the villain... but they must to recognise the harms committed, otherwise we are just pretending they don't exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

In race issues, for example, trying to insist racism is just those intentionally racist villains, rather than any of the structural "whiteness" which is no-one's direct action or intention in particular. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Surely, you are not making such a broad brush stroke here?

"Whiteness" being invoked in racial sensitivity discussions?



First if all it's completely wrong to think, believe, suppose, and/or otherwise imply that all racists are white. Secondly, "whiteness" is the amount of white that something possesses and/or exhibits. The more white something is the brighter the whiteness of the thing.

The whiteness within racism is not a villain when the oppressed is white.

So...

You're not making much sense to me here Willow.

I think we have gone as far as we can. Thanks for the time. — ZhouBoTong

Hmm...

I expected you to at least address what I said...

Ok...

I guess???

Be well. Oh...

And thank you!

I also don't think the it's physcholgically toxic to recognise oneself as the villain.
— TheWillowOfDarkness

Wow, I would think it would be terrible (and possibly impossible) to view oneself as the villain. Aren't we all the protagonists of our story? — ZhouBoTong

Not impossible, particularly if and/or when 'we' revel in knowingly harming others for no good reason at all. Some folk like to think of themselves as the villain.

Regarding the racism link...

I do not think that everyone who exhibits beliefs and/or behaviours that originally stemmed from racist belief is equal in any other 'racist' way. Sometimes. Sure. Not always though.

Not all sneers are racially motivated. Not all muttering under one's breath is accompanied by racist overtones or has racial undertones. Such charges can be quite misplaced if all one has to go on is muttering and sneering. It could be all about the person's character and very well may have nothing at all to do with race or the color of skin.

We must be very careful who we charge with being racist. Such charges need to be made when it is the case, but sometimes people seem a bit trigger happy, so to speak.

It is not at all uncommon for an adult to learn something new about where a certain phrase originated, and sometimes those origens are questionable. One who finds themselves in such a situation may or may not also have a habit of negatively judging an entire population of people based upon the color of their skin alone. They will however have learned that something they say/do is offensive.

Not all these people are villains, even if they are prima facie evidence of the residual effects/affects of institutionalized racism.

The best possible results are clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be in a representative form of government.

Properly implemented representative governments end up increasing the overall well-being and quality of life of the overwhelming majority of the people. That is clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be.
— creativesoul

I am not convinced of this. Historically, it would be difficult to provide evidence. — ZhouBoTong

What on earth?

It's purely a matter of sensible definition, and rightly so.

If it is not the case that a representative form of government, say... like the US... consists entirely of people who willfully, consciously, and/or intentionally take deliberate action to increase the over-all well-being of those over whom they have such power(the citizens)...

...if that is not the case...

...then that is not a representative form of government. Insisting otherwise is nonsense. Calling a government that does not have that distinct character about it, only pays lip-service to it's sole reason for existence as a representative form of government. If it fails to represent the best interest of the overwhelming majority of the people... it is not representative. To say otherwise is nonsense.

All representative forms of government consist entirely of people who are representing the best interests of the overwhelming majority of people(citizens). If a government consists of individuals who are looking out for the best interest of some faceless corporate entity and the decision being weighed ends up being a situation where there is a conflict of interest between the citizens(the overwhelming majority, in this case) and the aforementioned corporate entity, then they must always err on the side of the people.

If it is also the case that their own best interest aligns better with corporate entities, and we can always know that by looking at the relevant 'financial picture'(evidence), then it is also the case that their best interest conflicts with the very people over whom they have been granted power over.

They must err against their own interests(financial, in this case).

This could be said to be a problem, the solution of which is prevention, and it's already built in to the American Constitution. Unfortunately, that language has been ignored for so long now that the sheer number of guilty parties who've knowingly aligned their own interests against the overwhelming majority of Americans is so numerous that it makes it all too easy to keep getting away with it.

China never "properly implemented representative government" and yet if we compare their lives to one hundred years ago (or even just 50 in China's case), they have improved the quality of life massively for hundreds of millions of people.

I've never claimed that a representative form of government is the only kind that can be accompanied by an increase in the over-all well-being of the society. I'm saying that those results are necessary in order to sensibly say that we have one. It takes a bit more than just an overall improvement in the quality of life of the citizens to count as being a properly implemented representative form of government. That sort of general improvement is true of many different kinds of governments.

Workers' rights had to be established because too many 'employers' treated workers horribly. You are suggesting that we go back to that, or at the very least, you're advocating the same situation which led up to the requirement for workers' rights.

Presumably, experts are purveyors of current convention...

Sometimes convention is wrong.

These two men cannot be allowed to retain the power to directly influence so many people's lives over which they do not have sufficient concern for; people that they do not care about. Everything short of unnecessary violence and/or harm.

When a long list of political opponents wind up dead, those standing up for truth, justice, and the American ideal do nothing to glorify and/or excuse it. We certainly do not offer public admiration for anyone so involved, especially while simultaneously denouncing and deriding American public servants. We do not stand and glorify the likes of Putin while knowing of the severity of crimes against humanity due to him.

We - as a candidate fr president - certainly ought not be permitted to be financially tied to Russian banking institutions while presiding over the office of the presidency of the United States of America.

We certainly ought not be allowed to continue on as if there is nothing else to see..

I cannot.

When there is legitimate and/or valid concern involving such deep seated problems, and the proof is the financial record, and the financial record has been kept private, then it becomes impossible to convict a guilty man.

Along with the presumption of innocence comes the possibility for guilt.

Grant that the president wanted to root out corruption.

Now, someone... somewhere... arguing on behalf of the president tell me...

What is the excuse for not investing every bit of the resources necessary to help stop known Russian corruption of American elections?

The Trump administration has done nothing. The Mueller report was a call to subsequent action. It was the first step in the process. It found overwhelming evidence that Russian agents aimed to influence the election and effectively did just that using a variety of different means. It found adequate evidence that members of Trump's campaign were actively, knowingly, seeking to coordinate with foreign entities(current enemies of the state) as a part of that very process. Some members bore the name Trump.

The idea that Trump did not know what his family members knew and/or were doing is strictly unbelievable. Any careful examination of things already known shows otherwise. It's not as if they are long lost relatives...

Either he does not care about known verified corruption at the highest levels, or he's just bullshitting when claiming the motive was to investigate corruption of the Biden family. That investigation has already been closed. The Russian one... not so much.

Yeah, Trump is full of shit.

Treasonous behaviour in many ways. Why not call a spade a spade?

Secret meeting with Putin during an investigation about the possibility of coordination between Trump's campaign members and Russian agents actively seeking to influence the American election by virtue of damaging Trump's political opponent...

What on earth would constitute a clearly established pattern of behaviour of using foreign entities to attack and discredit a political opponent?

What on earth could have been done differently - if it were true - to better satisfy Russian interests while retaining some semblance of plausible deniability? From the change in the GOP platform language at the convention(that came as a surprise to many) through the allowance of Russian forces in the middle east...

Looks like great times for Putin. Add to it his recent actions to remain in power indefinitely...

He has made his case and so have members of Congress and the senate.

Biden threatened to withhold over a billion dollars if the top prosecutor wasn’t fired. Meanwhile his son was being payed vast sums of cash working for a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, and this right after a revolution. — NOS4A2

If they did it... why can't I?

If what they did was wrong, then so is what I've done...

He's brilliant at making his own case, that's why everyone responsible for cleaning up his messes wants him to just shut the fuck up.

Not just behaviour... belief. Discussion is how it's started, about universal morality. Universally held/shared moral beliefs... regardless of that which is subject to individual particular circumstances. Common sense agreement upon who ought wield power over people.
— creativesoul

Sounds great...reminds me of Anakin Skywalker's solution to government:

"We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problems, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it." — ZhouBoTong

In a system that is clearly broken in some important respects, it takes more than politicians. Afterall, we already have a bunch of politicians sitting down and discussing the problems, and regardless of who did what and when... regardless of blameworthiness... it is not working.

Particularly in a representative form of government in which the elected officials have voluntarily entered into the duty to act in the best interest of all Americans. When that is just simply not the case, the people themselves must have a say, must be privy to the conversation, must be the oversight committee. The people must be knowledgable about what's really going on, otherwise they are misinformed.

Properly implemented representative governments end up increasing the overall well-being and quality of life of the overwhelming majority of the people. That is clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be.

What happens when people disagree? I am not convinced that most people will be willing to give up much of their belief systems to focus on what is shared...

The beauty of it all is that there is no need to give up all individual belief. As a matter of fact, there is no need to give up any belief at all in order to rightly assess the commonality, the shared belief that we all have.

That's one of the best relevant summaries I've recently read concerning the conflicts of interests between corporate/business entities and the labour force. Coupled with the intimate relations between corporate interests and elected political figures, and you get one of the biggest current problems underwriting the wealth gap and the actual issues leading up to the all too common American view that elected officials and politicians cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Very nice.

Nice thread. I'll watch.