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

If by “strikes primal chords” you mean you get a little tingly sensation whenever you hear a first-person plural or first-person possessives, without first wondering what this “us” refers to, I’d say you’re susceptible all types of propaganda.

Your round-about way of defending censorship pushed you into maintaining a position you have been unable to defend. — NOS4A2

Your attempt to separate words from their meaning and consequence is the result of your irresponsible defense of Trump's irresponsible claims. Your inept defense of his right to free speech is based on your treating words as if they do not matter. Any rational discussion of free speech and censorship needs to address this.

You clearly didn’t know what the concept was until I mentioned it. — NOS4A2

If you just look elsewhere you will see I have discussed this with regard to Wittgenstein in various threads. For example here from 5 years ago.

Note that the issue of linguistic arbitrariness goes much deeper than the form and sound of words.

I asked you to start a thread on your linguistic theories but you declined.

Later, after giving you the word “arbitrariness” to google, you confirm what I was arguing all along. — NOS4A2

I don't know if this is a reflection of your failure to understand or an attempt to dissemble. I am not confirming what you have been arguing, I am pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding. The arbitrariness of the form and sound of words does not mean that the meaning of words is arbitrary. It does not mean that words do not have power or do not matter.

Why do you keep saying “our democracy”? Why not just say “democracy”? — NOS4A2

First, because it is our democracy that Trump endangers.

Second, there are various forms of democracy. You have no trouble with:

your version of democracy — NOS4A2

but question the notion of our democracy. The reason you have a problem with this is because you reject the idea of a common good, of anything that is ours rather than mine or yours. There is ample evidence of this earlier in this thread. For you there is only the competition between individual rights.

Trump makes demagogical use of this. His only interest is in what benefits him. Perhaps he sees no problem with this because he assumes we are all like this, but perhaps because he just does not care, and to think otherwise is a weakness. But what does the demagogue say:

In the end, they're not coming after me. They're coming after you — and I'm just standing in their way.

If by “strikes primal chords” you mean you get a little tingly sensation whenever you hear a first-person plural or first-person possessives, without first wondering what this “us” refers to... — NOS4A2

You can strike everything after "If" because it is just sophist propaganda spewing out of your head, whether intentionally so or not. A more interesting topic to me is whether or not you can relate to "us" striking a chord. Or to what degree you can do so?

I’d say you’re susceptible all types of propaganda. — NOS4A2

First off, as you demonstrate over and over in this thread alone, you are enormously susceptible to propaganda yourself. So now that we've established that we are humans here discussing things in this thread... Do you experience thoughts of "us" as striking a primal chord within you?

@NOS4A2

I forgot to mention Plato's Cratylus. The question of linguistic arbitrariness is not something new and not something I was not aware of.

Your attempt to separate words from their meaning and consequence is the result of your irresponsible defense of Trump's irresponsible claims. Your inept defense of his right to free speech is based on your treating words as if they do not matter. Any rational discussion of free speech and censorship needs to address this.

I never said words do not matter. I think Trump’s words do matter, and that is why I am defending his right to say them, and from any attempt to suppress them. I was arguing words have no power, which means they do not do the things you claim they do.

I don't know if this is a reflection of your failure to understand or an attempt to dissemble. I am not confirming what you have been arguing, I am pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding. The arbitrariness of the form and sound of words does not mean that the meaning of words is arbitrary. It does not mean that words do not have power or do not matter.

I am pointing out your fundamental straw man. I never said meaning is arbitrary. I didn’t say that since the form and sound is arbitrary, the meaning must be. This is where your goalposts started to widen, as I’ve already shown.

First, because it is our democracy that Trump endangers.

Second, there are various forms of democracy. You have no trouble with:

No it isn’t. It’s your version of it he threatens, the one where every 4 years you spend an hour or two waiting in line to exercise your supposed rule, but end up delegating it to someone else. It’s the one where you are not allowed to contest the results of an election, where censorship is warranted, and where sorcery is regnant.

I do reject the notion of the common good, which is another selfish desire portrayed as something everyone wants and needs, where the ends always justify the means, including violating people’s rights so you can have it. No shortage of dictators used the rhetoric of the common good to justify totalitarianism.

I forgot to mention Plato's Cratylus. The question of linguistic arbitrariness is not something new and not something I was not aware of.

I pegged you as more of a Gorgias kind of guy.

You can strike everything after "If" because it is just sophist propaganda spewing out of your head, whether intentionally so or not. A more interesting topic to me is whether or not you can relate to "us" striking a chord. Or to what degree you can do so?

The word does not strike a chord, nor can any other abstraction you can put forward. You won’t tell me which “us” you’re referring to, proving to me it lacks any reference to the real world and flesh-and-blood human beings.

First off, as you demonstrate over and over in this thread alone, you are enormously susceptible to propaganda yourself. So now that we've established that we are humans here discussing things in this thread... Do you experience thoughts of "us" as striking a primal chord within you?

Which humans? You and me? Is this the “us” you’re speaking of? No chord is being struck over here.

The word does not strike a chord, nor can any other abstraction you can put forward. — NOS4A2

Well, you can say that for you it does not strike a chord, but you don't speak for everyone.

You won’t tell me which “us” you’re referring to... — NOS4A2

You didn't ask.

In the context of this thread, the "We the People" discussed in the preamble to the US constitution seems a relevant circle of who one might consider "us". Though I had no particular circle in mind. Some might associate "us" with family, and others with humanity, and draw the circle narrower or wider at different times, depending on circumstances.

Whatever monkeysphere you can relate to will do for the purposes of this discussion.

...proving to me it lacks any reference to the real world and flesh-and-blood human beings. — NOS4A2

You seriously need to improve your critical thinking skills. You mistake jumping to a conclusion on your part for something having been proven. I recommend greater recognition of seeking falsification as good epistemic practice.

Once again, you didn't ask.

Do you still need me to explain references to the real world further?

I never said words do not matter. — NOS4A2

Just about everything you say demonstrates your disregard for words.

I was arguing words have no power — NOS4A2

If words have no power then they have no power and do not matter. The problem is, you open your mouth and stick your foot in it. In your attempt to extricate it you stumble.

I never said meaning is arbitrary. — NOS4A2

If words are arbitrary then they have no meaning.

I didn’t say that since the form and sound is arbitrary, the meaning must be. — NOS4A2

You claimed:

Words are independent of thought. — NOS4A2

and

It is not possible to deduce the underlying meaning from its word form. — NOS4A2

It makes no sense to treat words as if they are independent of thought and an equivocation to pretend that what is at issue with words is the form they take.

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. — RogueAI

It certainly has a nihilistic tang. No effort is made to connect this view with the political statements being made concerning the immediate environment.

Perhaps we are witnessing a performance in the style of Dada, an expression such as that considered by Ball:

In 1916, German writer Hugo Ball, who had taken refuge from the war in neutral Switzerland, reflected on the state of contemporary art: “The image of the human form is gradually disappearing from the painting of these times and all objects appear only in fragments....The next step is for poetry to decide to do away with language.” — Hugo Ball

But that sophisticated self-awareness of the absurd is absent from using a Liar's paradox way of saying "everything is permitted." The absence of law is the state of Nature envisioned by Hobbes, the war of each against all.

As such, the statement is a contradiction masquerading as an idea. What is desired is only expressed as a subtraction.

Well, you can say that for you it does not strike a chord, but you don't speak for everyone.

Neither do you but you keep referring to "us".

You didn't ask.

In the context of this thread, the "We the People" discussed in the preamble to the US constitution seems a relevant circle of who one might consider "us". Though I had no particular circle in mind. Some might associate "us" with family, and others with humanity, and draw the circle narrower or wider at different times, depending on circumstances.

Whatever monkeysphere you can relate to will do for the purposes of this discussion.

In that case the "us" will be you and me. Still, no chord being struck here.

You seriously need to improve your critical thinking skills. You mistake jumping to a conclusion on your part for something having been proven. I recommend greater recognition of seeking falsification as good epistemic practice.

Once again, you didn't ask.

Do you still need me to explain references to the real world further?

You haven't referred to the real world. You brought up "us", clearly referring to yourself and your own imagination. Let me know when the real world enters the picture.



Your magical thinking regarding words shows your disregard for them. You have to imagine they have a special powers in order for them to matter. “If words have no power,” you say, “then they have no power and do not matter”. It’s your own base and superstitious non-sequitur.

It makes no sense to treat words as if they are independent of thought and an equivocation to pretend that what is at issue with words is the form they take.

You seem to believe words are more than their form, but are still unable to show me that they are. Where is this other stuff? Point to it, take a picture of it, describe it—anything.

I have wasted enough time responding to, by your own admission, your thoughtless words. The cure cannot lie in more words. The only cure would be for you to begin to THINK. Clearly and honestly, as a matter of integrity. Drop the rhetorical defense of Trump and with it the defense of all the nonsense this leads you to say.

But perhaps I give you too much credit by implying that you are capable of doing this.

Let me know when the real world enters the picture. — NOS4A2

The real world has been in the picture throughout our discusssion.

I was curious as to whether you would falsify my intuition that you are on the psychopathy spectrum, and I provided you with multiple opportunities for you to provide evidence falsifying that hypothesis.

...perhaps I give you too much credit by implying that you are capable of doing this. — Fooloso4

Seems likely to me. (Although I don't think "credit" or "discredit" are necessarily relevant.)

I have wasted enough time responding to, by your own admission, your thoughtless words. The cure cannot lie in more words. The only cure would be for you to begin to THINK. Clearly and honestly, as a matter of integrity. Drop the rhetorical defense of Trump and with it the defense of all the nonsense this leads you to say.

But perhaps I give you too much credit by implying that you are capable of doing this.

This whole time you haven’t once revealed how words are more than their form. And your rhetoric is powerless. You try to tell me what to do but it has the exact opposite effect. A waste indeed.



I’m afraid we’ve never met so your intuitions amount to nothing.

I’m afraid we’ve never met so your intuitions amount to nothing. — NOS4A2

Right, meeting you has nothing to do with the basis by which my intuitions formed. However, I have had previous experiences which led to me having good recognition of the pattern. You aren't providing any reason to think that the pattern doesn't fit. Do you think you are able to?

Sure, I’d love to see your argument.

If you are not on that spectrum it should be an easy matter for you to read up on the pattern and explain how it doesn't fit. Why would you need any help from me in that regard?

It should be easy for you to explain why I’m on it. You told me you saw a pattern.

It should be easy for you to explain why I’m on it. You told me you saw a pattern. — NOS4A2

I've got better things to do.

Looks like signs of delusion to me.

This merits discussion:
Special Counsel Jack Smith Petitions the Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s Immunity Defense

The above article contains the full text of Smith's filing. The filing identifies 2 specific questions to be resolved:

1) Whether a President has absolute immunity from federal prosecution in all circumstances
2) Whether a President has immunity from federal prosecution for crimes he's been impeached for, but acquitted.

Regarding (1): if SCOTUS rules in favor of #1, this would mean there is no constraint on a President. He doesn't have to follow acts of Congress. He can spend, or not spend, allocated funds per his own whims. IOW, it establishes dictatorial powers. It ends the United States as we know it. I don't foresee SCOTUS making this ruling (although I'd be unsurprised by a favorable vote from Thomas).

Regarding (2): the implications are narrrow: it would protect only Trump from being prosecuted in the D.C. Trial for any counts that were brought in the Impeachment.

For (2), I see no benefit for Trump. The Senate acquitted Trump of one count: "Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States..."

The count references various acts that Trump committed, but an acquittal doesn't imply a judgement on those specified acts, it just implies there was a judgement that Trump did not incite violence against the Government. This is not one of the charges in the D.C. indictment. Instead, there are 3 counts of conspiracy and one 1 count of obstruction.

I'm guessing SCOTUS will also rule against this, but it could be a closer vote. If they DO vote for it, the implications are primarily for future impeachments: in many cases, it would be better to let the criminal justice system judge guilt or innocence through an impartial jury rather than by a body that is inherently biased by politics.

Does anyone have a different view?

This seems to relate to the ne bis in idem principle, which means you cannot be prosecuted twice for the same fact. Is an impeachment a prosecution? I don't think so, so I don't see how it would result in immunity.

Wait...can't be tried twice for the same fact? I thought it was for the same CRIME. People have been acquitted of murder, and then charged with a civil rights violation for the same act.

1) Whether a President has absolute immunity from federal prosecution in all circumstances — Relativist

Of course not!

As to how the court will rule, although political bias might favor protecting Trump, I think they are smart enough to see that such a ruling could bite them in the ass. Because of their bias they would not want to give the same protection to those who they are biased against.

2) Whether a President has immunity from federal prosecution for crimes he's been impeached for, but acquitted. — Relativist

No. Acquittal does not mean that the person impeached is not guilty of the crimes for which they were impeached.

Do you think Clarence Thomas will agree with you (and piss off his wife)?

Well, it might be that his decisions will be those his wife concurs with. It might also be that consideration of whether she will concur is a determining factor. But, she too might see how this might come back to bite her in the ass.

On the other hand, and contrary to what I said above, the court might decide to rule in favor of Trump and deal with what comes when the person in office is someone whose politics they disapprove of when they come to that bridge.

Seems fine to me. One's a prosecution, the other a common law claim, right? Liability can kick in because of contractual risk distributions that have nothing to do with intent or gross negligence.

Oh wait, I must looked it up and it's a criminal proceeding as well. This can be a difference in law systems. I'm pretty sure in the netherlands it's about the constellation of facts that you cannot be prosecuted twice for. In the past, prosecution wasn't even allowed to change the writ before the court session. So if you made a mistake you were screwed. This has been somewhat relaxed, in that you can change the charge as long as it is part of the same chapter (eg. related type of crime). This is why when you study, you're taught to charge suspects with all the crimes that you think applies. In practice, most prosecutors charge what they think will most likely result in a conviction. I never understood that since it's not a lot of work to add additional charges (a paragraph per charge suffices generally speaking).

@Tobias anything to add?

I think they are smart enough to see that such a ruling could bite them in the ass. — Fooloso4

How so?

I thought it was for the same CRIME — Relativist

That's certainly how the Fifth Amendment is worded.

"[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

They might approve if it helps Trump but they might not want to help a liberal president.

They might approve if it helps Trump but they might not want to help a liberal president. — Fooloso4

No problem. They rule in Trump's favour and then when a liberal President does the same thing they rule that the facts are different this time and that the liberal President can be prosecuted. Easy peasy.