They were talking about hanging Trump's VP on Jan 6. His partner in governance! Imagine what they'd do to some poor jurors for holding Trump liable for sexual assault.

As for the jury selection it was an anonymous jury. No lawyers had access to them during the process, therefor no voir dire. — NOS4A2

Wrong again. It was an unusual voir dire, which I assume was designed to protect the identities of the jurors. Protect them from delusional Trump supporters. Trump supporters often don't have a good grasp on reality and have been known to be violent when things don't go their way.

Are you saying that I think that others believe Trump assaulted someone in the video? — NOS4A2

Sure, I'll go further down the rabbit hole. Do you think that others believe Trump assaulted someone in the video?

There was no jury selection process. Such a fair trial. — NOS4A2

I’m no legal buff but just did a quick search and it looks like your delusions are deepening.

In addition, the unanimous decision of the jury based on the evidence they heard is not evidence either because they are all biased against him. — Fooloso4

You would think that Trumps lawyers would have done better in the jury selection process. I hear he only hires the best people.

It was literally presented as evidence in a rape trial. I don’t get what you’re saying here. — NOS4A2

If you can show where someone in the trial claimed that the video proves that Trump sexually assaulted a woman then do so.

She’s not claiming that it’s proof of sexual assault, obviously.

Try again?

The same video was submitted as evidence in the E Jean Carrol trial to show a pattern of Trump’s behavior. — NOS4A2

You can't give an example of anyone claiming that the video is proof of sexual assault but you believe that such people exist anyway. Kinda cultish, I gotta say.

Yes, that's known as the fight or flight response, not the critical thinking response. — T Clark

I submit that people with developed critical thinking skills will tend to manage this response much better than people without.

they appear to believe he grabs women by the pussy, that this video proves it — NOS4A2

The video is not proof that Trump sexually assaults women.

Can you give an example of ANYONE claiming that it is proof of sexual assault? If not, you appear to be the believer.

Let's see if we can straighten this out. You wrote:

Fact: He does not grab by the pussy the woman he was just talking about.

Cult Members: "He grabs them by the pussy!"

From what you've explained, you appear to be claiming that "cult members" believe that Trump sexually assaulted the woman in the purple dress, even though that's not what the video shows. Although you write that the cult members say "them" and not her.

That's pretty crazy, I have to say.

I'm saying from the video that his actions do not match his boasts, and its stupid to believe that it does. — NOS4A2

You're claiming that "cult members" watched this video and came to believe that Trump sexually assaults every woman that he comes into contact with?

Critical situations require calm to address effectively. — T Clark

We evolved to get excited in critical situations. Stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline are released. Our blood pressure and heart rate increase. We start breathing faster. Even our blood flow changes.

He was saying what you can get away when you’re a star, not what he does when he meets people. But it was in the context of meeting the woman standing just outside. — NOS4A2

So here it is:


You're claiming that "cult members" watched this video and saw Trump sexually assaulting the woman in the purple dress? Seriously?

On the other side of your misrepresentation, he is not talking about some particular person but "they". — Fooloso4

So when NOS says: "Fact: He does not grab by the pussy the woman he was just talking about." He's saying that Trump has never grabbed for pussy and this is a fact.

He was talking about an incident of pussy grabbing that hadn't occurred yet?

I said "ideally." — T Clark

Funny, because critical thinking could be handy in critical (fearful or otherwise emotional) situations and not just when sipping tea in a lounge chair or whatever.

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. Eariler you wrote:

"Fact: He does not grab by the pussy the woman he was just talking about."

How do you know that's a fact?

I think ideally it requires emotional equilibrium and calm. — T Clark

We should only think critically when emotionally balanced and calm?

It seems to me that critical thinking would be particularly useful when we're upset and therefore may not be thinking clearly. Rationality alleviates irrationality, in other words.

I don't know what you mean. If he was talking about a past incident with a particular woman, I'm pointing out that you could not know what actually occurred during that incident. You appear to be believing what Trump, a person who lies like a child, reported.

Fact: He does not grab by the pussy the woman he was just talking about. — NOS4A2

You can't know that's a fact and by your own reasoning that appears to make you a cult member.

I think your idea of critical thinking and mine are different. — T Clark

Well just out of curiosity, what is the proper emotion to motivate critical thinking? Do other modes of thought require specific emotional motivation?

As I see it, the criticism of "them" I've seen in this thread hasn't constituted critical thinking. Seems more motivated by fear, hatred, and contempt, just like we accuse them of. — T Clark

As I see it, critical thinking needs to be critical of everything and everyone, including oneself.

Critical thinking can be motivated by fear, hatred, contempt, love, envy, and many other emotions and combinations of emotions.

The advantage my solution has over yours is that it's something you, I, and all people of good will can do right now. Treat people with respect. — T Clark

Well, no, your initial requirement for a democracy is a sense of common purpose (and not critical thinking). People can share a common purpose without respecting each other.

The problem with uncritical thinkers and a desire for purpose is that they’re easily lead by people with divergent purposes.

We have much more in common than we do in conflict. — T Clark

Indeed, but again the problem is that the easily lead are easily divided.

NOS doesn't support anything that has the potential to infringe on his FREEDOM. :razz:

There is no evidence. Her claims of sexual assault can be discarded along with her accusations of rape. Believing such accusations without evidence says a lot about character. — NOS4A2

He practically confessed to it in the deposition, saying something like ‘*stars* have been sexually assaulting women for millions of years, unfortunately or fortunately’, and he regards himself as a star.

I really can't see how the kamikaze pilot could be interpreted as self-centred when the entire narrative was created around self sacrifice. Same for jihadis (and even though I think their zealotry is tragically warped.) They are indoctrinated to believe that they will receive their just rewards in the hereafter. — Wayfarer

As I said, I disagree that they’re motivated only by the promise of reward in the hereafter. I think a large part of their motivation comes from believing in whatever cause they’re fighting for, as well as social pressure. If it were only the promise of reward it would be entirely self-centered and not based on principles or values beyond self-interest. Nothing matters but me is a rather nihilistic attitude, if you asked me.

Also, the example that Tom mentioned about Catholicism abandoning all moral values in order to protect pedophile priests promotes nihilism because it indicates that the tradition is meaningless (without exceptional moral values).

I'm sure that many suicidal mass shooters firmly believe that when they die, there are no consequences in any kind of life beyond. That is what distinguishes nihilism from religious indoctrination. — Wayfarer

I just looked it up and mass shooters seem to have a really consistent profile. “Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying. Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts.” — Jillian Peterson, an associate professor of criminology at Hamline University

I’m not sure if it makes a lot of sense to say that such people are nihilistic. It could certainly be said that they’re focused on their own interests (not unlike how you say that kamikaze pilots and jihadis are focused on their personal reward) and not the well being of others.

I have no interest in the sexual lives of politicians. — NOS4A2

I think most people would agree that sexual assault says something about a persons character.

Plainly I will agree that such fundamentalism and extremism are abhorrent, but I don't think that makes them nihilistic as such. — Wayfarer

Abhorrent but not nihilistic? Not sure how to interpret that. Bad but not meaningless? Meaningful but not right? Do you think abhorrence can be meaningful?

kamikaze pilots and jihadi suicide bombers are both motivated by a belief in the afterlife. — Wayfarer

If that were the only motivation, and I don’t think it is, wouldn’t that be self centered and essentially nihilistic in the sense that their actions aren’t based on values or principles but merely selfishness?

Christianity was originally about questioning Pharisaic Judaism, especially the emphasis it placed on ritual over the well-being of real people. — frank

Religion is not about the well-being of real people. It's about creating and maintaining a strong group bond or 'tribe' through a shared narrative, values, rituals, etc.

Time to donate again, @NOS4A2 Write your check to E. Jean Carroll.

Enough bickering chaps. — Jamal

Gladly. It's not always easy to tell when someone is genuinely interested or just trolling.

Somehow I managed to get your goat. — frank

You certainly didn't manage to get an example.

I think we've trashed up the topic enough, btw.

Religions endure because people love their traditions. Not sure which part of the earth you're from that you didn't know this. :grin: — frank

I didn't say anything about people loving their traditions, troll.

Dorothy Day represented the Catholic Church. She worked to liberate minorities. Minorities are human beings. So she wasn't trying to make human beings as dependent as possible. She was trying to help them become independent. — frank

I see your misunderstanding and how I wasn't clear enough. I meant dependent on the tradition and that would mean within the tradition. I don't know how anyone could be considered dependent on something that they may have never even heard of.

I was just curious. — frank

You thought it was important enough to ask. Just trolling?

She's the representative of religion here. She worked to help emancipate minorities. — frank

How does that demonstrate independent thought or action from within that tradition?

Real question: where did you first learn about Dorothy Day? — frank

Planet Earth. Why is that significant?

PS: if you're just trolling for fun, please stop.

Generally speaking, a good exemplar would think and/or act in a way that demonstrates independence within a religious tradition. If you're suggesting that fighting for women's suffrage somehow defied the church, then you appear to be wrong.

That doesn't make sense.

I don't follow.

In an address before the United States Congress, Pope Francis included her in a list of four exemplary Americans who "buil[t] a better future".

The Catholic Church has opened the cause for Day's possible canonization, which was accepted by the Holy See for investigation. For that reason, the Church refers to her with the title of Servant of God. — Wikipedia

Hardly seems at odds with the church in any way. Can you explain?

That's not always true. — frank

Example?