Then you should be able to show me this “more to words” ... — NOS4A2

Are your words just scratches and sounds without meaning or significance? Can you replace them indiscriminately with any other words? Or, just strings of sounds and scratches? Does your defense of Trump amount to more than grunts? Is there more to what you say than there is to a dog barking?

... or point to any word in your lexicon of thoughts. But you won't. — NOS4A2

But I did. I gave you three: freedom, democracy, and autocracy. But you refuse to explain how you think about them and other words without words.

I think about things, like words or concepts, but that does not entail that I think in things like words and concepts. — NOS4A2

Then what is it you "think in" when thinking about them without them?

Do you think death threats should be legal?

This has got to be the one of (if not the most) off topic discussions I can recall. :rofl: :joke: :lol:
an hour ago — EricH

We have the best words.

you thought the experience of auditory inner monologue was a German thing? — flannel jesus

Well, I eventually decided that I would have heard of it if it was.

At least they won’t be lonely. — NOS4A2

Nobody is ever truly alone. You have yourself.

Are your words just scratches and sounds without meaning or significance? Can you replace them indiscriminately with any other words? Or, just strings of sounds and scratches? Does your defense of Trump amount to more than grunts? Is there more to what you say than there is to a dog barking?

They are. And you have to supply them with meaning and significance. They have neither. In linguistics it is called “arbitrariness”.

But I did. I gave you three: freedom, democracy, and autocracy. But you refuse to explain how you think about them and other words without words.

You gave me three words in text. Point to me any of the words that you’re thinking in. A picture would suffice. Any thing to which the word “word” signifies.

Then what is it you "think in" when thinking about them without them?

I don’t think in anything. I just think.

Do you think death threats should be legal?

I think everything should be legal.

This is a guy who thinks it should be legal to call a bomb threat on a plane... This guy's verison of legality is everyone else's vision of hell.

And you have to supply them with meaning and significance. — NOS4A2

If they are devoid of meaning and significance I'm not going to do for you what you have failed to do for yourself. If your words are devoid of meaning and significance there is no reason to take anything you say seriously.

In linguistics it is called “arbitrariness”. — NOS4A2

You clearly do not understand what linguistic arbitrariness means. 'Water' and 'agua' have a different form and sound but mean the same thing. Theform and sound of words may be arbitrary but the meaning is not. If you look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary it does not say that the meaning is arbitrary, that it means whatever you want it to mean.

You gave me three words in text. Point to me any of the words that you’re thinking in. — NOS4A2

You are deeply confused. When I think of those words I am thinking in terms of those words. I am thinking about what democracy and freedom mean and how a demagogue like Trump and his followers threaten our democracy. I am thinking about how there has been a disturbing shift to autocracy in many countries and how if Trump is elected or attempts to overturn the election again the US will become an autocracy as well. And I am thinking of how Trumpsters will attempt to render the term meaningless by accusing their opponents of being autocratic.

This reminds me, a while back I asked you if you support democracy. You never answered. Is it that you think it is a meaningless sound or are you just unwilling to admit that your loyalty to Trump trumps democratic rule?

Words don't have the power [...] — NOS4A2

Might we not as well shut down elementary (and other) schools then?

In case Trump's crap was true, it would merit action (like the My Lai massacre and the Holocaust and Watergate did), and if someone believes so, then you'd expect them to act, yes?

(As an aside, do you think belief formation is necessarily rational or "free choice" (assuming there is such a thing)?)

↑→ words

If they are devoid of meaning and significance I'm not going to do for you what you have failed to do for yourself. If your words are devoid of meaning and significance there is no reason to take anything you say seriously.

If you can read you should be fine. If you want me to clarify, don’t be afraid to ask.

You clearly do not understand what linguistic arbitrariness means. 'Water' and 'agua' have a different form and sound but mean the same thing. Theform and sound of words may be arbitrary but the meaning is not. If you look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary it does not say that the meaning is arbitrary, that it means whatever you want it to mean.

One minute we’re talking about words, next we’re talking about meaning. The goal posts continue to expand. I say the word is arbitrary, you tell me the meaning isn’t, tell me to look at the dictionary, and I guess I’m supposed to feel refuted thereby. So where are these words you think in?

You are deeply confused. When I think of those words I am thinking in terms of those words. I am thinking about what democracy and freedom mean and how a demagogue like Trump and his followers threaten our democracy. I am thinking about how there has been a disturbing shift to autocracy in many countries and how if Trump is elected or attempts to overturn the election again the US will become an autocracy as well. And I am thinking of how Trumpsters will attempt to render the term meaningless by accusing their opponents of being autocratic.

When you think of those words you are thinking in terms of those words…you can’t get any more circular than that.

Only an autocrat would suggest no one is allowed to contest an election. Never will you mention the forces at work trying to keep people off the ballot, or that state and federal governments are trying to railroad their greatest political opponents, or the routine censorship of dissenting voices. Maybe it’s you rendering the term meaningless. “Our democracy” has become pure doublespeak in the mouths of those who continually utter it, anyways, so no glittering generality you pretend is at threat will work here.

This reminds me, a while back I asked you if you support democracy. You never answered. Is it that you think it is a meaningless sound or are you just unwilling to admit that your loyalty to Trump trumps democratic rule?

I support the rule of the people. I don’t support your version of democracy, which is no doubt conflated with electioneering, vote-grubbing, and representative government. How many times have you ruled? Your version of rule of the people is centered on how many time the earth rotates around the sun, for purely astrological reasons. You exercise your rule one day every few years for no other reason than it’s time to vote. This is oligarchy and serfdom and I do not support it.

Only an autocrat would suggest no one is allowed to contest an election. — NOS4A2

Nobody has a problem with his legal attempts at contesting it. Take it to a court, they look at it, decide if the case has merit. That's fine.

The problem was everything else he did to contest it. Like literally telling pence not to confirm it. Like asking governors to find votes.

It's like, if a football coach thinks a ref made a bad call that lost them the game, the football coach was within-the-rules means of contesting that call. But if that coach then just decides "we would have won if it weren't for that bad call" and he goes behind the scenes and bribes the guy holding the trophy to give it to him instead... that's not okay, is it?

Never will you mention the forces at work trying to keep people off the ballot, or that state and federal governments are trying to railroad their greatest political opponents, or the routine censorship of dissenting voices. — NOS4A2

These seem to be the common talking points of Trump supporters right now. But I would ask Trump supporters to attempt to be fair and balanced about this. For example, there can be legitimate reasons to keep people off of the ballot, being a political candidate doesn't exempt you from being indicted when you commit crimes, and in some contexts censorship is good -- fact-checking and editing are both an essential part of journalism and gag orders can be appropriate during trials. You can always frame things a certain way. But at least try to see the other side.

Do you think death threats should be legal?

I think everything should be legal. — NOS4A2

You've just underscored why it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.

In 2017 Democrat in Congress begged Biden not to certify the election based on conspiracy theories. It’s called politics, and I don’t recall anyone raising any stink about it then.

https://cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html

In any case, so illegal was the Pence move that they had to change the law after Trump tried it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/congress-approves-new-election-certification-rules-in-response-to-jan-6



The Trump-hater has proven himself incapable of fairness and balance. Justice evades him. It’s all about power and conformity, and moving to control how others think. Unfortunately his power wanes. His double-speak doesn’t have the effect he thinks it does.

One minute we’re talking about words, next we’re talking about meaning. The goal posts continue to expand. — NOS4A2

This whole exchange has been about your attempt to separate words and meaning. I called you out on this from the beginning of this exchange. From my first two posts on this:

One of the greatest dangers of words comes from disregard for their importance, as if what Trump says does not matter. — Fooloso4

The fact of the matter is that you use words as a rhetorical devise in an attempt to destroy the power and meaning of words, accusing those who oppose him of whatever it is he is accused of. — Fooloso4

More on this last point below.

You then go on to defend yourself by misunderstanding and misusing the concept of linguistic arbitrariness. But we should expect no less from someone who claims to think without words.

Only an autocrat would suggest no one is allowed to contest an election. — NOS4A2

Back to this factless talking point. But thanks for confirming my point that:

... Trumpsters will attempt to render the term meaningless by accusing their opponents of being autocratic. — Fooloso4

I don’t support your version of democracy ... — NOS4A2

We have not discussed my version of democracy. I have never said what it is. Despite all its faults and weaknesses one positive thing about our democracy is that we will have the opportunity to vote to keep Trump from being elected. But, of course, the way the system works he might be elected. The price of freedom.

My biggest concern is what he will attempt to do if elected. As he is promising, one thing he will attempt to do is remove the checks and balances that prevented him from doing whatever it is he wanted last time around.

I think everything should be legal. — NOS4A2

Your wish is granted, including that it is legal to make laws and enforce them. The fundamental problem with anarchy is that it fails to forbid government.

The Trump-hater has proven himself incapable of fairness and balance. Justice evades him. It’s all about power and conformity, and moving to control how others think. Unfortunately his power wanes. His double-speak doesn’t have the effect he thinks it does — NOS4A2

This goes both ways. What I see on the conservative side, with conservative media, is defining liberals and Democrats as evil -- demonizing them non-stop, 24 hours a day. Democrat = Satanic. Once you've done this, then it doesn't matter what the shortcomings of conservatives and Republicans that you've chosen to support are, since they're still better than the opposition which has been defined as pure evil. This is how Christian Evangelicals justify supporting someone like Trump. And then it kills any chance of working across the aisle since that means being a traitor. Anyone who does that gets branded as 'Republican in Name Only' or RINO -- basically an apostate. So, you purge anyone moderate out of your party. People like Mitt Romney are feeling like the Republican party is no longer something they identify with because it has become so radicalized. Being a 'real' Republican now is no longer a set of beliefs or principles, it has been reduced to a single criterion which is passing the loyalty test to Trump.

I think everything should be legal. — NOS4A2

Why are supporting Trump then? He certainly doesn't think "everything should be legal". Far from it. I would think, based on what you've said, you'd be better off writing in some anarchist's name.

I support the rule of the people. I don’t support your version of democracy, which is no doubt conflated with electioneering, vote-grubbing, and representative government. — NOS4A2

It sounds like you favor major changes in the U.S. Constitution; or scrapping it entirely for a new form of political participation.

Your descriptions of Trump do not place him in the context of the partisan processes you scorn. The talking points you use to argue your points come from those processes.

Trump would have won in 2020 if he had gained a few more Electoral votes. Few things exemplify the legacy of 'representative' polity better than the Electoral College.

The views you advance on the nature of government do not connect with reasons why you support Trump so assiduously. That is in stark contrast to those who support him because they see him as the best chance to gain their interests in the present conditions.

, I'm guessing @NOS4A2 is just using the Trump circus to criticize democracy, well, ultimately any state/government. Kind of coincidental, in a way?

I have to say, I feel that the NY civil case against Trump Corp's valuation practises is on very shaky ground and will get tossed on appeal. As Trump keeps saying, valuation is a subjective process, and furthermore none of the banks who accepted his inflated valuations brought a complaint about them or apparently lost any money. Neither did the IRS with respect to valuations quoted for tax purposes. (And boy do I hate it when Trump is right about something.)

What with Trump literally threatening a dictatorship and leading in the polls, the DoJ ought to keep its powder dry for the real Trump killer cases - the Jan 6th secession, the Classified Top Secret Files in the bathroom, and the Georgia cases. The NY cases (the fraud one and the hush money one) are mainly a distraction from the big ones. And the big ones have to hit their mark, expeditiously. Even though I think Trump will be beaten fair and square in the end, everything available has to be brought to bear.

:100:

I have to say, I feel that the NY civil case against Trump Corp's valuation practises is on very shaky ground and will get tossed on appeal. As Trump keeps saying, valuation is a subjective process, and furthermore none of the banks who accepted his inflated valuations brought a complaint about them or apparently lost any money. Neither did the IRS with respect to valuations quoted for tax purposes. (And boy do I hate it when Trump is right about something.) — Wayfarer

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344

Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
(1)to defraud a financial institution; or
(2)to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1014

Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way the action ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6662

(a)Imposition of penalty
If this section applies to any portion of an underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return, there shall be added to the tax an amount equal to 20 percent of the portion of the underpayment to which this section applies.

(b)Portion of underpayment to which section applies

This section shall apply to the portion of any underpayment which is attributable to 1 or more of the following:

...

(3) Any substantial valuation misstatement under chapter 1.

The law is pretty clear. You can't just decide for yourself that your property is worth $10,000,000 when asking for a loan but worth $1,000 when paying your taxes. One or both are clearly, criminally, fraudulent.

:up: Glad to hear. More fool me for believing Trump’s shtick, I guess. Although still wouldn’t be surprised if the case is tossed on appeal.

Your wish is granted, including that it is legal to make laws and enforce them. The fundamental problem with anarchy is that it fails to forbid government. — unenlightened

:up:

While I like the anarchistic ideals, I fail to see how any such form ever lasts long enough to be sustainable on a large scale. Not necessarily to fall into ruin, but rather how people in their dynamic shifts over the course of history wouldn't just end up gravitating away from anarchy if the zeitgeist of a particular time in their history produces enough people to support another form of society.

In the end it feels like anarchy instead functions better as a perspective used to criticize hierarchies and deconstruct rigid structures to put them into a perspectives that can prove them not being a natural order, but instead an invention that can be criticized.

The corresponding problem with government is that it cannot distinguish itself from a Mafia. The ordinary decent man has a free choice as to exactly what to call how he is fucked. :mask:

This whole exchange has been about your attempt to separate words and meaning. I called you out on this from the beginning of this exchange. From my first two posts on this:

Your round-about way of defending censorship pushed you into maintaining a position you have been unable to defend.

More on this last point below.

You then go on to defend yourself by misunderstanding and misusing the concept of linguistic arbitrariness. But we should expect no less from someone who claims to think without words.

You clearly didn’t know what the concept was until I mentioned it. I was using the concept earlier in the exchange and it fell on deaf ears until I gave you something to google. See this quote:

“Words are independent of thought. It’s the reason we can’t understand a language simply by reading it or hearing someone speak it. Scratches on paper, text on screen, and articulated guttural sounds are arbitrary, merely conventional. It is not possible to deduce the underlying meaning from its word form.”

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859380

Later, after giving you the word “arbitrariness” to google, you confirm what I was arguing all along.

“You clearly do not understand what linguistic arbitrariness means. 'Water' and 'agua' have a different form and sound but mean the same thing. Theform and sound of words may be arbitrary but the meaning is not.”

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859550

This merits its own consideration:

Why do you keep saying “our democracy”? Why not just say “democracy”? We know the answer: this trite phrase is political language, not used to discuss the concept, but used to appeal emotionally to those who read it. This is what “thinking in words” gets you, an over-estimation of the power of words and the attempts at propaganda as a result.

This merits its own consideration:

Why do you keep saying “our democracy”? Why not just say “democracy”? We know the answer: this trite phrase is political language, not used to discuss the concept, but used to appeal emotionally to those who read it. This is what “thinking in words” gets you, an over-estimation of the power of words and the attempts at propaganda as a result. — NOS4A2

It also merits consideration that "us" strikes primal chords, in homo sapiens who aren't psychopathic to some degree. Any thoughts on that?