Sophomoric retort at best.
— Thanatos Sand

The simple truth, as spoken to me by Natural Laws.

You're right, it is the simple Truth you made a sophomoric retort. As to my education, I am well educated. So, you're sophomoric and hubristic, quite an accomplishment.

On the one hand, there is overwhelming evidence that institutions are less trusted now than they were several generations ago. A chunk of that is down to Vietnam. But then there's the stuff Chris Hayes writes about in Twilight of the Elites. (Essential reading!)

Trust is not an indicator of Truth. The German people greatly trusted in the lies of their Nazi leaders about the Jews, and White Americans were buying their governments lies about the threat of communists in America and the need for racial segregation, and these were all periods of non-Truth. And the Blacks, Jews--great targets during McCarthyism--and Gays weren't exactly trusting America's government. Also, there is never overwhelming evidence on things as intangible as Trust, and an unqualified, biased newsman like Chris Hayes certainly isn't one who can provide it.

Then there's Trump. I remember hearing a bit on NPR where a Trump supporter in coal country said he didn't think Trump would or could actually bring back coal jobs, but it was just nice that he was saying something. Showed that he cared.

Okay, so the "literal" truth of what he said was not even an issue. Trump was in essence "virtue signaling."

This is something politicians have done before Trump, during Trump, and will continue to do after Trump.

And you can pile onto this the saturation of our culture with media, the loss of distinction between fiction and non-fiction in a gazillion ways, and I think, yeah, there's a real problem here.

With the saturation of media, has also come independent media (Intercept, WikiLeaks, Counterpunch, people with cell phones) able to and committed to exposing Truths--about things like DAPL, racist police brutality, American war crimes--that corporate media has shied away from, purposely avoided, or lied about. So, considering the media we had before was dishonest too--despite the few Murrows--the "saturation" of media has not been the problem.

Sophomoric retort at best.

Thanks, man. I feel the same about your posts.

I don't think the term "post-truth" refers to falsity. As explained here, "Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.

At least partly, it definitely does. You can't have a phrase like "Post-Truth" without reference to falsity. And what you refer to above has also always happened, including the mid-20th century. If you don't think McCarthyite hysteria and racist paranoia and hatred wasn't fueled by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals were ignored in the mid-20th century and all other periods, you need to read about them some more.

Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of truth by rendering it of 'secondary' importance."

No, it doesn't. Things have always happened that way.

Again, I would ask those committed to the idea that we've now moved into a 'post-truth' world: When exactly did we live in an age dedicated to truth?
— Erik

Mid-20th century, according to a Harvard Professor:

That's evidence-less support, and Harvard professors are often wrong. And the mid-20th century was full of lies from politicians and regular people. From top-down, politicians were making lies about communists in our midst that led to the horrendous Mccarthy hearings, there were lies about all the supposed terrible crimes by Blacks and Latinos, lies about the extreme dangers from comic books, and lies told to justify segregation and anti-Gay laws.

The notion of the nonpartisan, fair, and balanced media is really a kind of mid-20th century phenomenon

And this is erroneous, since the media, including the Walter Winchell's, backed all the above nonsense up.

As wii I.

Charming retort well-representing your intellect...:)

Post truth world...

That has never not been the case.

No, Non-Truth world; this has never not been the case. See my last post for clarification.

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

...has always been the case, and then saying that "we're not in a Post-Truth world" is to both affirm and deny the existence of a post truth world. That is a performative contradiction.

No, it's not, since to say we're in a Post-Truth world is to say we were once in a "Truth world," and I made very clear we never has a "Truth-world." So, you're speaking performative nonsense.

Prefixing the term "truth" with the term "the" is not always appropriate.

That issue actually reflects yet another problem that arises in a post truth world.

Except we're not in a "Post-Truth" world; were in the "same-lack-of-Truth-we've-always-had world.

This...

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

...has always been the case.

Yes, but that's not what you said in your previous incoherent ramble, and "this" is not a "post-truth" world since it's not "post-truth."

Look at page 45, about halfway down you'll find the following direct quote...

"This has never not been the case."

Keep in mind that it was a direct response to the following:

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

If the term this does not include everything within that quote, then the term this has no clear meaning/referent.

If the term this does include everything in the quote, then the term this refers to everything in that quote..

At this point, you're just ranting and raving and not saying anything coherent, whatsoever.

No contradiction there because although a skeptic may doubt you are a fuckwit (or quite likely both since trolls are fuckwits by definition) I am under no such obligation since, I never claimed to be a skeptic.

And now, nobody will be skeptical of your being a fool as well, since I never said anything about your obligation to be a skeptic. I correctly showed how your usage of "skeptic' countered each other. So, the fuckwit is clearly you, and no intelligent person would be skeptical of you.

if you were smart you would look at the way most of your exchanges with others end up and take note. But perhaps you are enjoying yourself trollishly. If you don't say something interesting this time you will be ignored.

If you were smart, and you're clearly not, you'd get an actual education before you engaged intelligent, educated people like myself. And the only one who has been trolling has been you. So, you should really take note of that.

We're not in a Post-Truth world..."

...conflicts with this claim...

"It has never not been the case that a post truth world..."

I never made the second statement, so now you're just pathetically lying, and those statements don't even contradict.

So, you're living in your own non-truth world, since you're just a liar, now.

No. What I call a post truth world was not captured in the quote.

Of course it is. You refer to it in your first sentence:

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

No. What you call a post- truth world is what we've always had.

They both hinge on the past, I now see. Conservatives want to maintain what is left of the past and restore what has been lost. Progressives want, it seems, to run a fine-tooth comb through everything about the past and dismantle and repurpose anything that looks like a workable job with their tools (rationalism and science; universal human rights; tolerance; etc.).

This is just wrong.

Saying that "X" has never not been the case is to say that "X" has always been the case. When one says either, and then says that "X" is not the case, it is a performative contradiction.

Except I never did that since I repeated my assertion that x--not a post-truth world, but a non-truth world--has never not been the case, which renders the notion of a post-truth world inaccurate.

So, you just made a very performative error. And since you agreed with me that we've never not had a non-truth world, and thus are not having a post-truth world, the performative contradiction is yours as well. Congrats...:)

Performative contradictions aren't acceptable Sand...

That's fine since I made no performative contradictions, and you haven't shown I have, Creatchy

The skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all.

So, as you said in your ridiculously inaccurate definition, "the skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all.

You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that.

But in the quote above, you clearly indicate a skeptic would know it is doubtful that I am a "troll" or a fuckwit. So, while the smart skeptic would doubt that, you embarrassingly contradicted yourself.

Of course you contradicted yourself since you used "skeptic" in a manner completely countering the erroneous definition you gave. So, in your trollish excitement and fuckwit confusion, you've just humiliated yourself...:)

Me, too, but I'm surprised you agree with me that we're not in a Post-Truth world, but in the same non-Truth world we've always occupied.

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

This has never not been the case.

The point I tried to make is that it is not much of a surprise that things like fraudulent mortgages and then mass foreclosures happened when we have people--typical American households--eager to play right into the hands of the hucksters.

They weren't eager to play into the hucksters; they were eager to have their own home, as almost all Americans are. The people they gave money to were established bankers working for major banks. They shouldn't have had to go to those people thinking those professionals were going to screw them out of our money. We don't do that when we go to buy a car anymore, and we shouldnt' have to do that when we're buying a home. So, don't blame the victims for not expecting legal businesses to criminally rob them of their savings.

No, clearly the only troll or fuckwit, is you. And you've well proven that.

And you said skeptics believe you can know nothing, so you just contradicted yourself, no matter how wrong you are...:)

The only one who needs study and education--and lots of it--is clearly you...:)

So, get on it.

if you were a skeptic you would not make such an assertion. The skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all.

I am a skeptic and you are clearly not. Since that is not what the skeptic proper contends at all. I think you mean the Socratic.

And since beliefs, in the absence of any actual knowledge, are supported only by other beliefs, the skeptic says we have no warrant even for thinkig one possibility is more likely than another so all imaginable states of affiras are equally compatible, and all beliefs equally incompatible. with pyrrhonian skepticism.

No, the skeptic does not say that at all, and you haven't given any evidence that that's what real skeptics think.

Yeah, they might even know that they are lying, but the real thing is if something can be shown as a lie.

No, the real thing is the politician lied.

If I promise to do something, but I am not successful in doing it, am I a liar?

I explicitly mentioned politicians who make promises they know they can't keep. So, you are straw-manning me, which doesnt' make your arguments look good.

If I quote one batch of economists and not others, mention certain facts but not other, am I lying? If we are making forecasts about the future and choosing what would be the optimum policy for the best outcome and then the future is totally different, were we lying when making the forecast and picking our actions?

This is a pointless ramble that doesn't address anything I said. So, far you've just wasted your time, as you haven't addressed my post at all.

No, these lies couldn't hypothetically be true, anymore than Trump's lies, since Bush and company knew damn well they weren't true, and he continued to send Americans to die and kill many Iraqis. The fact you see these lies as better than Trump's is pretty sad.
— Thanatos Sand

Actually, just how the White House pushed for the Iraqi invasion is quite well documented. And as intelligence paid a role, then it's quite logical that there allways is possible that something is missing.

Actually, it's well documented Bush and company knew there were no WMDs and pushed the lie anyway and got thousands of Americans killed and millions of Iraqis killed. The fact you're fine with that is shameful.

For instance, if it wasn't for one incompetent Syrian official having secret data on his laptop outside of Syria, basically the Israeli intelligence wouldn't have known of the Syrian nuclear weapons program that they later destroyed. Reason was that Syrians were extra carefull of having anything electronically out of the project. Hence the possibility of Saddam having a WMD Project was there, even if actually very improbable.

This is irrelevant nonsense. the mere possibility a lie may be true doesn't mean the lie wasn't a lie. Theres a mere possibility you may be a murderer, that doesn't change the fact that if I told people you were one, I'd be lying.

Besides, politicians quite often start to believe their own ideas that help their agenda. These ideas you would call lies.

Yeah, and that could apply to Trump, too. So, you obviously think he's like the rest.

So, everything is already so f***ed that there's no use complaining about how f***ed Trump is.

I never said that. Your reading here is just awful.

The fact that you put all of your opinions in bold face just makes it seem like you're shouting at everyone, which is also the tone of your posts. (I know this will elicit more vitriol, but I'm feeling charitable.)

The fact you can't grasp I put my opinions in bold face in long posts so to demarcate my posts from my interlocutors is unimpressive. And the only angry, shouting tone, and only vitriol, has been in your post above, so, you've been a shameless hypocrite, as well.

the already established and defined word Skepticism that would not allow reincarnation.
— Thanatos Sand

You're confusing separate statements. Yes, a belief in, or an assumption of, reincarnation would be contrary to skepticism.

But no, you haven't shown that reincarnation, itself, is ruled out by skepticism.

("skepticism", with a lower-case "s", the common-noun)

I never said that reincarnation was ruled out by skepticism, again you misquote me like a troll. I showed the definitions of the word skepticism and how they are incompatible with reincarnation. You, however still have failed to show how reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, as you erroneously claim. It's gotten comical.

There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan.

Thanatos is making assertions, unsupported ones, of course. But that's typical for Thanatos.]

No, I was telling a reality intelligent people have already figured out. Of course, you haven't. But that's typical for Ossipoff-his-rocker. Since there is as little evidence of reincarnation as there is existence of God and Satan, my statement was true. You're just slow on grasping that.

— Thanatos Sand
So, no, the supernatural concept reincarnation

Translation of "supernatural": Not part of Physicalism.

No doubt you have your beliefs about what's "natural". I'll just guess that, for you, "nature" means "the physical world", and reality consists of the physical world.

LOL, more like no doubt you have no idea what "natural" or "supernatural" means. You have well shown words are difficult for you.

...is not compatible with skepticism.

As I said, a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be un-skeptical. ...as would any unproved belief or assumption.

But you haven't shown that skepticism rules out the possibility of reincarnation itself.

So, you agree reincarnation is not consistent with skepticism. Good. And skepticism isn't about ruling things out. Again, your struggle with words is astonishing.

I've made very clear what is lacking and incorrect about what you said about reincarnation being inconsistent with skepticism. You just run away like a scared child every time and fail to show how it is not...as you do above.

And the only one making angry noises--out of many orifices-- has clearly been you...:)

Ps... you make your loudest, most ridiculous noise when you crazily scream that you can add your own "metaphysics" to a pre-existing word.

No he didn't and the fact you can't articulate them helps prove it.

There is no more reality of reincarnation as there is reality of God or Satan. So, no, the supernatural concept reincarnation is not compatible with skepticism.

The only one who's been misquoting is you. So, you are the common troll

And you, yourself, said your definition of skepticism went along with the official first one of going against assumptions, so I quoted and addressed you perfectly.

Now, you're moving away from that and are trying to attach your "metaphysics" to the already established and defined word Skepticism that would not allow reincarnation.

So, you're being an irrational troll.

Ps. You said we were done. So I guess you lied, too

I can only show what is wrong with it..
— Thanatos Sand

Feel free to, but only if you want to.

I will once you actually show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism, first. You clearly don't want, or can't, do so..:)

By the way, here's my actual quote:

So, since you clearly cannot
show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism, I cannot show what is exactly wrong with it. I can only show what is wrong with it.. — Thanatos Sand

Well, what i said was that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism.

No, it's not and you have laughably failed many times to show how it is.

But since Skepticism is skepticism, then it could be said that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism too.

That makes absolutely no sense since no definition of skepticism is consistent with reincarnation. You are truly grasping at straws.

Look, I'm not interested in trying to convince you about that. I've already said what i meant to say, and I'm willing to answer you if you have a specific disagreement with a specific quote.

If not, I assure you that that's fine too.

LOL. Almost all of my threads have been specific disagreement with specific quotes of yours. Again, you fail to show how reincarnation is consistent with skepticism. Since it's not, that's hardly surprising.

I'd say that we're done here, and that this conversation has reached its end.

Maybe the one true thing you've said this thread.

You are really sad. This is what I honestly said:

"I didn't imply anything. You have absolutely refused to answer me and back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. So, since you have failed to do so, I cannot tell you what is exactly wrong with it. Try and back up that false claim and I will."

I can't tell what is exactly wrong with a statement of defense until you make that statement since there are many ways to make a statement. I'm sorry you never learned that fact. So, since you clearly cannot
show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism, I cannot show what is exactly wrong with it. I can only show what is wrong with it..

Thank you for your dishonesty or your insufficient education....:)

No, let's not imply that I refuse to answer you. If you want to quote a particular statement or conclusion of mine, quoted from a post of mine on reincarnation, and if you tell us exactly what you think is wrong with that statement or conclusion, then I'll be glad to answer you.

I didn't imply anything. You have absolutely refused to answer me and back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. So, since you have failed to do so, I cannot tell you what is exactly wrong with it. Try and back up that false claim and I will.

But, if not, that's fine too, because, as I said, I've had my say about reincarnation, and you're free to draw your own conclusions.

And as I have said, you may have "had your say," but you have still--like four times now--failed to back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. Since it's a false claim, I'm not surprised.

Someone started a topic in which people were talking about how there could be reincarnation. I decided to add my comments to that discussion.

And you have also made a false claim that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, which you have failed to support numerous times.

You're free, however to show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism any time.
— Thanatos Sand

As I said, I've had my say about that, and you're free to draw your own conclusions.

No, you haven't just had your say, you've completely failed to back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. And you fail to do so again.