• Metaphysician Undercover
    I was thinking the very same thing. All the canary does is sing without saying anything; but if something shuts it up, then it's time to take notice. Imagine if they took a parrot into the mine. The parrot would be telling the miners what to do, all day long. Probably the tweet! tweet! of the canary is a little easier to put up with.
  • ssu
    I think that people have difficulties understand basically "agendas" and "bias" that media typically has. How these "agendas" can come out is simply looking at what isn't reported and what things are reported. Some unfortunately think that this means that the articles published are then "fake news" and totally untrustworthy. I think that in mainstream news the "liberal agenda", or in the case of Fox News the "right-wing agenda", is totally observable. One simply needs some understanding of the issues, some awareness of the current events and some source criticism. Disinformation is still quite easy to spot.

    Yet the unfortunate fate of many nowdays is that they are totally complacent and happy to stay in their own echo chamber, which enforces their own views. They can do this and refer only to that the media "is biased". True Trump loyalists are the perfect example of this. Anything related to the Russia inquiry is dismissed as fake news, hence they don't have any reason to follow what is happening in the Mueller investigation. And with the "Trump is Hitler"-people the simply fact to be understood ought to be that one man doesn't make an administration.
  • DiegoT
    I own two canary birds and a blue-gold macaw, and I can confirm canary sounds are way more bearable. I can report also, from years of direct observation, that sounds canary do are not meaningless. They aren´t an structured language, but they carry a lot of meaning. For example, if a bloody stray cat comes to visit my patio and I was asleep (early morning) the specific sound for "cat!" wakes me up so that I can get up and scare off the predator. But I don´t wake up with cheerful singing, that is way louder and longer; it´s because the sound for "predator here!" is very specific and used only when a cat is really there. Over time, you realize that sounds in birds are part of their behaviour management, like children playing alone and talking to themselves or chanting; and other birds read the patterns in those sounds like we read faces.
  • DiegoT
    Not even Hitler was really Hitler. Hitler has become a Darth Vader figure, a quintaessential villain. It´s no wonder than stupid people deny the facts of WW2; the period and especially the National-Socialist regime have been made too literary and archetypal.
  • Dan84

    Truth to that
  • Dan84
    Trump or rather the state of the world is what happens when dangerous geniuses write books that the intelligent read and over the following 2-3 generations indocrinate the combination of semi-intelligent and unintelligent, or rather entirely stunted, that remain. Mayhem. Trump and the guys that got him elected has their fingers on the pulse of the deplorables. Anyhoo I kind of think it’s the role of the philosophically minded to view all this as irony loving observers rather than take an active part in such a dirty,
    murky and ambigous world.

    All tongue in cheek of course. Couldn’t care less.

    All though the bit about the canary calling cat is interesting.
  • Relativist
    Well the Guardian is fairly reputable, and two sources is better than one, whereas the Canary is new and 'radical', and that article seemed to be sourced mainly in tweets. Still, the story is un-confirmed elsewhere, and the meetings denied by both parties. "
    The important thing is that we ahould not treat the claim of meetings as fact. Even if true, it will only be relevant if there is admissable evidence for it. We have to wait for Mueller's report to know what what facts can be established. In the meantime, we just have these little tidbits, that may or may not pan out.
  • S
    Obamacare vs. Republican plan compared

    I don't get how Trump, or Republicans, or anyone else, can think that the Republican plan is an improvement on, or would do more good than, Obamacare.

    The Republican plan scraps mandates for having or offering health insurance and scraps penalties for non-adherents, it makes it possible for a state to waive mandatory coverage of certain health conditions, it makes it possible for a state to apply for waivers that allow them to drop coverage for maternity care, introduces changes which would see reduced government support for Medicaid and tax subsidies for individual's purchasing health insurance.

    Why cut government support at a time when the US economy is doing well? Why expose more people to greater risk? Why transfer powers to determine policies on healthcare coverage from the government to individual states or employers, when that increases the risk of inadequate or exploitative policies? Why do they want less people covered or supported?
  • frank
    Why do they want less people covered or supported?S

    Government organized healthcare smacks of socialism. It conflicts with the conservative's small government/survival-of-the-fittest attitude.

    Medicare is central to American healthcare. It will begin falling short financially in a few years, so change is on the horizon. Inteligent people would start planning decades in advance for the change. Not us. We'll just face-plant into it.
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.