To me, it's more amazing how easily people bow their heads to experts once the experts perform some mathematical magic tricks that they don't understand ;) Much like witch doctors did 2000 years ago. — Agustino

Mathematical magic tricks like hmmm, statistics?

Nowdays it seems that people are OK with statistics if the statistical result tells something they want to hear. Otherwise it's fake news.

Nowdays it seems that people are OK with statistics if the statistical result tells something they want to hear. Otherwise it's fake news. — ssu

No, if someone came with such statistics to me to predict a result, I'd bet against it and win some money actually :D - so I would like it very much!

People tend to double-down on their commitments rather than admit to being wrong. They're so invested that they're incapable of changing their mind. Probably an ego thing. — Michael

There's no doubt some truth to that, but if you're thinking specifically of the "backfire effect", it's worth checking out this interview: "After new research, however, it seems that the backfire effect might not be as strong as once thought."

it's more amazing how easily people bow their heads to experts once the experts perform some mathematical magic tricks that they don't understand — Agustino

Glorying in your own ignorance. Stats is a basic literacy.

(I am beginning to hope for 100 pages...)

One can hope.

At least in part due to yours truly, who dutifully brings back items of post-truthiness on a regular basis....

Here's some post-truth myth making; enjoy!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/23/paula_white_defends_trump_post_charlottesville_on_jim_bakker_s_tv_show.html

An atheist, an agnostic, a buddhist, a jew, a muslim, a hindu, and a christian all walk into a bar and sit down. After a while they drink, talk, and quickly become friends...

If you're waiting for a punchline... don't, cause it ain't a joke. That's just what happens when you're not an asshole. — creativesoul

I think this is actually a serious misunderstanding of the gravity of our modern situation. I think Alasdair MacIntyre was right in his book After Virtue that we, as a society, no longer have the tools and the means required to settle moral disputes.

You presuppose that the atheist, agnostic and so on so on (to adopt a Zizek line) can become friends, but this is already to presuppose the victory of the atheist. The real problem of course is that these are very different ways of life, which are mutually contradictory. When you say we can all get along, you are effectively doing harm to non-atheistic (I'm using atheist in a very loose sense here) ways of life. It is what the atheist always promotes - toleration - but toleration means the destruction of beliefs that disagree with his.

Conflicts will only intensify in the future and get worse and worse because these groups of people simply cannot live together and we have no means of conflict resolution at our disposal. Indeed, living together in the so-called modern Western society is being defeated and humiliated for a religious person. A Hindu and a Christian have more in common, and indeed can be friends, much better than a Christian and an atheist. There is after all not such a big divide between the Hindu and the Christian. The divide is superficial - different doctrines here and there, different theologies, and so on so forth. But fundamentally the Christian and the Hindu agree on the means of living in a community. We agree about the importance of respecting traditions, respecting authority, respecting one's family, sexual morality, how people should dress and so on so forth. There is a deep agreement that there exists a spiritual realm which is more important hierarchically than this material realm.

However, with the atheist, this is very different. The atheist cannot comprehend for example how sex has a spiritual meaning, and thus the atheist has a completely different understanding of sex. This understanding of it translates into his behaviour - and how he interprets the behaviours of others. We cannot have both his behaviour and my behaviour in society because they are mutually opposed. Indeed, if his behaviour is accepted, then mine is rejected. And I cannot allow that to happen. For example, he will interpret me teaching my daughter that it is immoral to have an abortion as oppression of women. Neither can the atheist allow his behaviour to be rejected. He cannot allow me to have my moral standard, because if I do, and I am successful, there is no place for his way of life, for his way of life will disappear since people will shun what is now viewed as immoral behaviour. Thus conflict is inevitable.

And these labels aren't very useful because many religious people are actually atheists in the West. They are religious only in name. That is not of much use, is it?

Glorying in your own ignorance. Stats is a basic literacy. — Banno

And what makes you think I don't know stats? I know stats very well, that's exactly why I have the privilege of distrusting them. Because I understand what is going on.

At least in part due to yours truly, who dutifully brings back items of post-truthiness on a regular basis.... — Wayfarer

How much does Crooked pay you? >:)

And what makes you think I don't know stats? — Agustino

Your responses to Michael.

Edit: in a bit more detail, Michael presented a mathematical analysis in support of his claim. You did not reply in kind, but instead simply claimed that the experts could not be trusted.

So are you lying, and know that what you are saying is wrong, or are you bullshitting, and don't care so long as you are supporting Trump?

Edit: in a bit more detail, Michael presented a mathematical analysis in support of his claim. You did not reply in kind, but instead simply claimed that the experts could not be trusted. — Banno

He actually didn't present a mathematical analysis, he just indicated how the pollsters analysed the data they had collected. I've already critiqued that methodology and shown by example how some of the following assumptions are wrong:

That the probability distribution is normal.
That the sample is random.
That the sample is representative.
That there are no systematic errors.
That people answer honestly.
That people would actually behave as they say they'd behave if they actually had to vote. — Agustino

How much does Crooked pay you? — Agustino

I don't understand it. There's a lot of depth in your other posts, even though I don't always agree with them, although in some respects I do. But then you come out in defense of the indefensible, which simply destroys your credibility. I am not going to get into another pointless argument, but I am convinced that in this regard, your judgement is flawed.

He actually didn't present a mathematical analysis, he just indicated how the pollsters analysed the data they had collected. — Agustino

And he did that using poetics.

And he did that using poetics. — Banno

No, he actually did that by pointing me to the methodology of the pollsters. Then I critiqued that methodology. That's the facts of what happened. Now you may disagree with my criticism, and you can think that the methodology applied (including the mathematical analysis) is valid, but that's an entirely different story, which has little to do with the facts.

I don't understand it. There's a lot of depth in your other posts, even though I don't always agree with them, although in some respects I do. But then you come out in defense of the indefensible, which simply destroys your credibility. I am not going to get into another pointless argument, but I am convinced that in this regard, your judgement is flawed. — Wayfarer

The very strange thing is that I feel exactly the same way about you. You also have so much insight sometimes, you are a spiritual person, you are not blind. Moreover, you understand the value of social conservatism, you even are one, and yet you support the most monstrous of candidates - like Hillary Clinton - out of fear of someone like Trump. How can a man like you be afraid of a Trump? A Trump is very visible, but Hillary is invisible. And with her would have come the likes of Amy Schumer and Madona triumphant! Can you just imagine? Conservatives would have been expelled from the US! What would have happened with your social conservatism? Madona offered people a blowjob to vote for Hillary Clinton - that already is sufficient not to support Hillary. The fact that she associated herself with such people is sufficient. Not to mention all the corruption scandals, the deletion of 30,000 emails, her husband's behaviour towards women and her protection of him, and so on so forth. It really amazes me, your behaviour.

At least with other people around here, I can say they are very superficial and have little understanding. What else could be expected? But you have no such excuse.

How a man like you can bear to associate yourself with these people (who are the absolute opposite of all that religion and spirituality stand for) is to me inconceivable. I'd rather prefer death than to associate myself with such people.

And what's so bad about Trump? Yes he's a narcissist. So what? His politics is still better than the politics of the non-narcissist but Crooked Hillary. Look at him. He is upset that people are pulling down the statues in US, and destroying the heritage of the country. That is the sign of a good soul, of nobility. He even disrespects his advisors to hold on to this position. Hillary would instead have congratulated them for pulling the statues down! She switches her position - such as on gay marriage - with the wind. She has no integrity - even the integrity that emerges out of ego is better!

Not to mention all the corruption scandals, the deletion of 30,000 emails, her husband's behaviour towards women and her protection of him, and so on so forth. — Agustino

And Trump hasn't done anything comparable (or worse)?

Madona offered people a blowjob to vote for Hillary Clinton - that already is sufficient not to support Hillary.

So if some celebrity offered people a blowjob to vote for Trump then that's a reason not to support him?

And with her would have come the likes of Amy Schumer and Madona triumphant! Can you just imagine?

What do you mean by this? You'd vote for someone just because you can't stand the idea that some people you don't like will gloat if their candidate wins? That's bizarre.

I think a lot of your "defences" of Trump are ridiculous, and a lot of your attacks on his opponents are hypocritical. I don't even know what it is you actually like about Trump. It's all very vague ("he's noble and has a good soul"). Is it just that he identifies as a Republican? Or are there specific policies that he has implemented (or wants to implement) that you agree with, like the Muslim or transgender ban or the Mexican wall?

If it is just the case (as I believe it is, recalling our discussions prior to the election) that the real reason you support Trump is that you think he's the best chance at having social conservatism promoted (overturning rulings on gay marriage and abortion and the like) then it would be far more honest and productive if you just came out and admitted it, and stopped trying to pretend that Trump himself is a good guy or a competent president. He's shown himself to be anything but. All he seems to care about is his image and his bank account.

And Trump hasn't done anything comparable (or worse)? — Michael

As far as I know, not really. He has maybe been cruel in some business deals, but I wouldn't say he's actually done as much as Clinton. In terms of personal sexual morality, he might be worse off than Hillary Clinton though, I can grant that.

So if some celebrity offered people a blowjob to vote for Trump then that's a reason not to support him? — Michael

No, if you read what I said, you'll see that I clarify further on that:

Madona offered people a blowjob to vote for Hillary Clinton - that already is sufficient not to support Hillary. The fact that she associated herself with such people is sufficient. — Agustino

She could have come out and said that she thanks Madona for her support, but her comment was not decent, and women aren't sexual objects who are only good for sex, and therefore we as a society shouldn't try to promote that image. But she didn't. Instead, she gladly accepted Madona's support, and not only, but she spoke with her, she invited her to her rallies, and so on so forth. That is already going too far. Such a person lacks integrity and backbone. She would do anything probably - including probably give a blowjob herself - if it could get her elected. That's terrible. A President should have integrity and should be willing to go against public opinion when public opinion is wrong. Clinton hasn't shown the capacity for that at all.

In addition, this affiliation between Presidents and celebrities - and Obama was already doing this stupid crap - is very very pernicious. Hollywood has no place at all in politics. We risk setting a very dangerous precedent if we allow Hollywood to influence elections and garner at some point even the power to decide who the winner is.

Trump, on the other hand, disavowed the KKK when they endorsed him. Whether he did it honestly or not doesn't matter right now, since we're only talking about the public statements that they made. The fact remains that publicly he disavowed it, which isn't what Clinton did with regards to those supporters of her.

I don't even know what it is you actually like about Trump. It's all very vague ("he's noble and has a good soul"). — Michael

No, I never said he's a noble and a good soul. I said that his impulse - to defend the statues from being taken down - is noble and good. The thing with Trump is that he is unconsciously good. He does not realize what he is doing, but some of the impulses he has are good. In fact, if you read what I said:

And what's so bad about Trump? Yes he's a narcissist. So what? His politics is still better than the politics of the non-narcissist but Crooked Hillary. — Agustino

Far from suggesting Trump is a good character, I said his character doesn't matter as much since his politics are still better than Clinton's.

He is upset that people are pulling down the statues in US, and destroying the heritage of the country. That is the sign of a good soul, of nobility. — Agustino

This shouldn't suggest Trump has a good character or soul - for then it would contradict the above. It should rather suggest that Trump has intimations of a good character or soul. I'd say those tendencies that he has, are unconscious - they're just deeply ingrained in him.

Or are there specific policies that he has implemented (or wants to implement) that you agree with, like the Muslim or transgender ban or the Mexican wall? — Michael

Whether I agree with them or not isn't very relevant to the discussion. And that's because morally speaking I'm indifferent to whether we build a wall between US or Mexico, whether Muslims from certain countries are banned from entering US, whether transgenders can or can't serve in the US Army, etc. These decisions are morally indifferent to me. They should be purely pragmatic decisions. Sure, I have preferences on them, but I wouldn't worry for a second if we chose to take the opposite course of action.

What I do want is to destroy the stupid political correctness that is like "OMG we can't build a wall, great nations don't build walls, we're all friends etc. etc." - they're trying to make a moral issue out of a non-moral issue, and in that I have to fight them. A country has absolute right to build a wall, to say these people aren't coming in our country, etc. This is part of the sovereignty of a country, and it's important.

Is it just that he identifies as a Republican? — Michael

I respect him because of positions he publicly takes on issues with regards to, for example, the statues, or the military, the veterans, God, etc.

If it is just the case (as I believe it is, recalling our discussions prior to the election) that the real reason you support Trump is that you think he's the best chance at having social conservatism promoted (overturning rulings on gay marriage and abortion and the like) then it would be far more honest and productive if you just came out and admitted it, and stopped trying to pretend that Trump himself is a good guy or a competent president. — Michael

Well I've been very honest about that. I'm not going to declare that he himself is a good guy, but I have no problem declaring that he's a competent president, because he actually is. I think we do need a President who will stick it in the face of the media and the corporate world who've started to think they have an absolute right of dictating our morality and culture. Of course there's going to be a massive conflict between the President and these people, and I think we actually need that conflict, I'm very happy it's going on.

All he seems to care about is his image and his bank account. — Michael

It doesn't sound to me like a guy who cares only about his image and bank account. Certainly such a guy wouldn't show his support for not taking the statues down, and in the process get in a huge fight with the media, risk ruining his reputation, and lose out on support from part of the business community. He totally wouldn't do that. So either Trump is stupid - which he is not - or he has some noble drives inside of him that are motivating him through his own very big ego.

I think we do need a President who will stick it in the face of the media and the corporate world who've started to think they have an absolute right of dictating our morality and culture. — Agustino

This is confusing. Trump is very pro-business. Most of his executive orders seem to be aimed at reducing regulations, and he has plans to reduce corporate tax. He's hired many big businessmen into government. He still owns the Trump Organization, refusing to divest from it.

And it isn't accurate to say that he sticks it in the face of the media, given his love of Fox & Friends, Sean Hannity, and Steve Bannon (who he gave a powerful position in the White House). He just lashes out at anyone that is critical of him. That's got nothing to do with some righteous fight against the "evil" newspapers and everything to do with him being a narcissist. Anything he doesn't like he just proclaims to be "Fake News".

I honestly don't understand how you can't see all this. Clearly one of us must be completely blinded by bias.

He's hired many big businessmen into government. He still owns the Trump Organization, refusing to divest from it. — Michael

Yes, he has. Richest White House team in history. So what? I'm not judging his hirelings, I'm judging him now.

This is confusing. Trump is very pro-business. Most of his executive orders seem to be aimed at reducing regulations, and he has plans to reduce corporate tax. — Michael

Okay, I don't think those things are bad in themselves.

He still owns the Trump Organization, refusing to divest from it. — Michael

Yes, he apparently does, but isn't actively involved in running it. Is that a problem?

And it isn't accurate to say that he sticks it in the face of the media, given his love of Fox & Friends, Sean Hannity — Michael

It's true he's friendlier with Fox, but Fox has a better and more truthful portrayal of what he does than the other media channels. But even Fox is critical at times, and Trump is also critical of Fox (though not of Sean Hannity >:O )

and Steve Bannon (who he gave a powerful position in the White House) — Michael

Whom he just fired.

He just lashes out at anyone that is critical of him. — Michael

He does seem to have that tendency, yes.

That's got nothing to do with some righteous fight against the "evil" newspapers and everything to do with him being a narcissist. Anything he doesn't like he just proclaims to be "Fake News". — Michael

So he supported not taking down the statues because the media lashed at him? :s

[DELETED]

I wrote a long impassioned response here, but - forget about it. I'm here to discuss philosophy not sound off.

I'm here to discuss philosophy not sound off. — Wayfarer

It's odd how one can be caught up in trivial pissing competitions. Good for thread length, but not of any value.

I sounded of earlier this week at the way the form of reasonable discourse is trivialised by bullshit.

When truth is not relevant, discourse becomes just a pissing competition.

While I will be happy to see this thread get to 100 pages, I would also be pleased to see it contain some quality comment.

This is quite a good defence of the conservative agenda.

What makes ethical statements different to other statements is that they are supposedly what everyone ought do.

Agustino's Hindu, Muslim and Catholic might agree in their condemnation of the atheist, but once the atheist is gone that agreement will break as they take to each other.

A fascist accepts that fascists may use coercion; Islamists accept that muslims can use coercion; but liberal ethics holds that my freedom ends at the tip of your nose.

OF course there are liberals who coerce; that's a problem. But the proper liberal response is to protest and reject coercion in the name of liberalism.

A liberal framework is the only option I am aware of that allows detente.

A liberal framework is the only option I am aware of that allows detente. — Banno

Hear hear. But the framework relies on honesty and respect for facts. And it is documented beyond question that Trump has no respect for facts.

Hence this thread.

Hear hear. But the framework relies on honesty and respect for facts. And it is documented beyond all possibility of question that Trump has no respect for facts. — Wayfarer

More binary banalities. The fact is that Trump sometimes lies and sometimes tells the truth.

The fact is that Trump sometimes lies and sometimes tells the truth. — Thorongil

...and has no care for either.

Nah.

the fact is he has told more than 1000 documented falsehoods, in public, since his inauguration, beginning with his lie about that.