They exist in your experience. What this consists in is the bloody question mate. I have actually explicitly stated this. Give me your answer. For the love of God.

You refuse to give any account whatsoever of how it's possible to see anything. I think perhaps you need to reflect on your way of going about these things. You literally haven't answered a single thing.

The heat the snake is interested in and detects is the heat emanated from warm bloodied mammals. This is not a private sensations the snake is detecting, it is a property of the mammal. No mental images need to explain what is going on here. So, is the snake a direct or indirect realist when it comes to infrared energy? Do we really need to use either expression? — Richard B

It's extremely likely (I will look into it while replying and see if I can glean a good determination) that the "heat" here is not a idealisation. And, as it goes, even your description betrays this: infrared radiation is not what is called 'heat' in every day use. The photons the pit detects slightly warm a membrane within the organ - that is a private sensation which other animals (say., mammals) do not enjoy. It is a private, at least semi-subjective sensation.

A better exampel from biology, which I think runs counter to this, is that my wife and I have very, very different ideas of what 15 degrees celsius means. For me, it's barmy - perhaps even crisp.
For her, it's slightly warm.

We are not detecting anything inherent in the air around us, clearly.

As Dingo didn't address this I'll have a go - I think the issue here is that social opinion is more effective censoring people than the law is. I return to Mill on this:

From Chapter 1:
"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."

From Chapter 4:

"The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion. And in general, those who have been in advance of society in thought and feeling have left this condition of things unassailed in principle, however they may have come into conflict with it in some of its details... In our age, from the highest class of society down to the lowest, everyone lives as under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship. Not only in what concerns others, but in what concerns only themselves, the individual, or the family, do not ask themselves—what do I prefer? or, what would suit my character and disposition? but—what is suitable to my position? what is usually done by persons of my station and pecuniary circumstances?

So its right to make a point about censorship, in the modern sense, being somewhat rare (although, I imagine many cases are unjustified beyond discomfort grounds anyway) but I think the above is illustrative of what's really wrong.
People shouldn't be interfering with other's beliefs in these ways, and we have literal roaming gangs of enforcers of political opinions, whether Islamic or Democratic (I simply don't know of any on the right at this time - if i'm ignorant, i'm ignorant).

The inarguable effect of social opinion precluding women from dobbing in their abusers is a prime example we may not want to lose sight of in these discussions.
The epistemic injustice meted out in yesteryear appears to have sort of turned on it's head, rather than diminished appreciably. Maybe this is just the nature of humans in large groups.

Fair - a distinction that does matter. I've noted before, publication is not as clear-cut as you make it seem.

Publication benchmarks tend to only be met by public figures. If not many people see your comment, this owuldn't apply. Which is likely why there haven't been more prosecutions.

In either case though (lets assume that every case is a publication issue) that is still clearly wrong in a democratic, adult society. Particularly one where, increasingly, use of social media is akin to talking shit with at the pub. Its a bit of a category error to capture social media posts by non-public figures with that i think (but this is just my opinion).

I see the point, but I don't think so, no. There is a semantic idealization - and even then, I think you're overstating. The vast majority of uses of "thermometer" or "check the thermometer" are to assess temperature. We then reach for our internal library of potential sensations to assess which that temperature is likely (well, we think, certain) to excite.

I believe neither of your two options. Why do you think we see images, take images into the head, or create images/representations, when neither of the above have been found in any skull in the history of mankind? — NOS4A2

This is to misunderstand, entirely, even the fundamental basis for what we're talking. You seem to think you do not have any images of any kind available to you. That's fine. But it means the rest of this conversation is utterly pointless.

I've worded that badly - I take him more seriously than Don. I think its a far, far bigger threat than a meme, regardless of how unbecoming it is of the office.

These are not metaphysical positions my guy. My point is still as strong as ever.

Their adherents routinely treat them as ultimate frameworks — Esse Quam Videri

Perhaps we're living in different worlds.

'm pointing out that you are overlooking the simple historical fact that religions do revise—slowly, unevenly, and often under pressure — Esse Quam Videri

And are almost routinely vilified for such. They are definitionally unopen to review, being revelatory. This is not contentious.

He's clearly a Trump apologist, and in my books that is a supporter.

There can be no middle road on this issue. You either support fascism, or you do not. — Questioner

This explains a lot. This is a childish, unhelpful and extremely bigoted way of thinking about other human beings. You are also probably entirely wrong on what you're calling fascism, in order to do hte first part. That's how bigotry works: you cloak it in something you think its morally worthy. Funny, that.

When I asked you what this meant, you chose not to reply, so I will have to assume that you are suggesting it is historically insane to draw parallels between the Germans who marched people to the gas chambers and the MAGA goons — Questioner

No. I either missed it, or didn't get to it. Please stop making assumptions about motivations and things you couldn't possibly know. That is, it seems, the most glaring problem in almost everything you want to talk about.

To answer: Yes. Because they are nothing alike (or, not more than trivially). The charges that they are speak to a lack of understanding, or perhaps a wilfull stupidity on the part of those claiming it in my view. The onus is on you. So, onward..

Why? You think those in the 1930s were a different human species than the ones we see today? — Questioner

If you truly think this is a good faith question (rather than an attempt to frame everything the exact emotional way you like it) I can't understand why you would wade into a philosophy forum.

You expect Minnesota to co-operate with their occupiers? — Questioner

This, for instance, is exactly the type of emotive, unhelpful nonsense you seem addicted to.

Prior to their arrival, the state should have fucking co-operated with Federal law enforcement's planned, notified lawful activity to enforce immigration regulations and laws (again, we can discuss how it's played out later. That is not yet open to us, in this exchange, if you want to actually sort anything out). As they did, apparently, under Obama who deported more, in worse circumstances.

DHS notes a more than 1000% increase in assaults on ICE agents. Are you trying to kid me, or yourself? Even court documents (which, I hope you understand what's happened when i delieneate between DHS stats and court docs) reports a 25% increase. That is absolutely absurd and would be considered a form of organised treason in many circumstances (I wouldn't call it that - I'm making a point).

And - “Operation Metro Surge” is unconstitutional – it violates both the 1st, 4th and 10th amendments — Questioner

Possibly. There is no ruling on this and making such a bold statement, again, explains why its so hard to have you say reasonable things in response here. Certain actions definitely do - that's not in argument here with me. But this statement is wholly incomplete and misleading.

I have to admit I am somewhat shocked that you would repeat such a stupid falsehood. — Questioner

Then we have nothing further. You are not in touch with reality and clearly on a particular intellectual mission I have no interest in. Why did you bother.. .

You are clearly incapable of hearing either a competing view, or refraining from hyperbolic emotional framing. You're entitled and I have ill no will. Am just utterly astounded at this type of bad faith being present on this forum (besides Mikie) and so shall 'dip' as they say. Different strokes... Let's stick to poetry.

Once again, you do not seem to have read anything but what triggered you emotionally.

Obama deported more people than Trump. THe circumstances in which they were held were as bad or worse. The places they were deported to were the same.
Conceptually, Don is the only difference. The extreme knee-jerk to his plans cannot be ignored as a trigger for how this has gone. Not that it justifies anything, but "fair and balanced" is a joke if you cant admit this.

This is exactly what he's talking about. Totally ignoring that there have been several hundred detentions for simply posting something on the internet that someone, somewhere doesn't like.

You realise that's the benchmark right? Someone claimed to be upset by something you said? If the state can intervene in such circumstances, you do not have free speech. Plain and simple.

Mikie, is it just your nature to make pithy, childish replies? There is no blaming protesters for getting shot unless they do something which would justify that. I've not said otherwise. You just cannot help yourself but but in with these low-level, Twitter-type trolls.

This is so intensely confused.

Minnesota actively, publicly said it would not co-operate with a Federal law enforcement activity which is justified and reasonable (not the current activities - i'm saying conceptually) was apparently fine under Obama. I would focus there. That would be sensible as it indicates you're going to get some trouble. As ICE have, in fact, had. You can ignore all the assaults on ICE if you like, but there are two sides to this (not hte murder of Pretti - It's bogus to pretend anything I'm saying is an attempt to justify whatever Mikie is whittering about. You have to actually read and not assume).
Texas, as far as I know, is co-operating. They do not need to run the type of operation seen in Minnesota (although, I'm not saying its good or that I'm 'fine' with it either). I wouldn't focus there. I wouldn't anticipate issues. Nor have there been.

The president's lawless army has descended upon the city, and this has nothing to do with immigration — Questioner

Well, both of these are utterly preposterous and supported by anything but personal assumptions.

It is about having a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act. It is part of the strategy to ensure Trump does not have to leave office. — Questioner

Haha. If you think so - I'd prefer to keep my head on my shoulders. If you truly think these are motivations for anything he's done, I implore you to bookmark this and come back to me in three years.

Trump's offer to remove the ICE army if Minnesota hands over the voter rolls shows that. — Questioner

No. That shows (on an inferential basis)he's concerned that Minnesota has been propped up by illegals voting for their Democrat mates who have supported wide-spread fraud. But prior to that, checking voting eligibility and fixing the holes (many of which have already been found - why are we ignoring things like that?) is exactly what he's said he wants to do. Is it in service of 'his side'? Yes. So was allowing millions of illegals to vote Dem.

If you're going to make this type of assumption that's fine - but I'm going to then say Walz dipping shows clearly he's guilty of fraud. Nice work :)

Exactly. First of all, ICE or any government agency wouldn't make an operation without approval of the state in normal times. And then it would be low key, simply marketed as totally normal police stuff. Just ask yourself: was it really in the news when the highest number of illegal immigrants were sent away during the years when we had Democrat Presidents? You have to have a serious political crisis when for example the Military is put into a state without the acceptance of the state leaders. It's not something that hasn't happened, for example President Eisenhower put the military escort black children to school: — ssu

Not entirely askance from your position here, but I think when you have multiple state leaders actively claiming they wont participate or co-operate with lawful ICE operations (which, at least as initially proposed, they were) you can't just "let it run its course".
But the optics and possibly actually authoritarian bent is not lost on me. It's is crucial to remember I am not a fan of the Don. I am a fan of discussing things in a mature manner and hearing all comers. It is not interesting to me to have people(Mikie) be so intensely combative and incapable of reading a full post that they say the batshit stuff they do.

We need to purge all the charlatans and bullshitters from halls of power everywhere. — Christoffer

Who does?
How is that to be assessed?
Or implemented?

These seem like wishful pipedreams of someone who thinks their moral compass is perfect (not you, but whoever actually runs this argument to its end).

instruments don't measure cold. They measure temperature.

That is a glaring misstep. Temperatures do not have 'cold' to refer to. Neither hot, nor warm or any other experientially-bound concept.

Methods don’t contradict each other or anything else — they constrain belief-formation. That’s not the same category. — Esse Quam Videri

haha. It's funny you think this runs for your point - It runs exactly for mine: They aren't hte same category. So comparison between them is of form. Scientific findings which don't cohere aren't problematic.
Religious views that do are
Scientific findings don't excite metaphysical commitments in people.
Religious discovery tends to
etc....

This is the exact point I am making. Secular view points aren't "incoherent" because they don't all claim metaphysical primacy. Religious views do.

If we agree on this, then I am having a hard time understand how you've come to disagree with any of what i've said.

Calling religious reformers “outliers” just builds the conclusion into the premise. — Esse Quam Videri

They are. That isn't my opinion. They are outliers. Religions are definitionally (most of them) unopen to revision because they are revelatory. This isn't controversial.

Super interesting that we're seeing essentially hte same set of facts, the same way,and getting a diff. conclusion. I mean interesting truly here - not some veiled derogatory remark!

Well, in principle i get you - but taking for instance, Abu Hafs al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, as seriously (or, in the same vein anyway) as Trump is, to me, a grave error which will have you doing and saying things I would liken to a panicked middle-aged woman trying to figure out why her computer is saying "Restart".

Dbl post. My apologies.

I have had a disturbing thought - that the ones justifying the murder of Alex Pretti are the ones who would have marched people to the gas chambers. — Questioner

That is historically insane.

They are, however, fucking blind.

That's true, but there's always going to be a question: If local law enforcement co-operated, the way they did under Obama, there wouldn't be the need for ICE to be carrying out these raids and there would be no media-driven (and, as much as you might think this is fine) a concerted, semi-violent effort to impede, harm and hamper not just the enforcement, but agents themselves, the temperature wouldn't be so goddamn high.

This is doable 10 years ago. It's not now. If its the fact Trump is doing, then that is the problem for those people, not hte enforcement.

And yes, there is always going to be this question, because that's what happened under Obama.

It’s interesting stuff, sure, but it is not sufficient to give me pause because humans have looked in the brain and have seen no images or anything that constructs images. — NOS4A2

Either you believe we literally take images into our heads from the outside, or we have absolutely, 100% without a shadow of a doubt, seen, in the brain, the infrastructure for creating mental images/representations. One of those needs to be true (but this doesn't determine an IR/DR perspective. It just is the two options available based on the fact that we aren't the images we 'see'). It would be helpful to know which you think is the case..

If humans don’t see light why do we have lightbulbs? — NOS4A2

I'm not quite sure what work this question is doing? Light provides the eyes with data. Without the light, there is no data. Though, it does seem we can literally see light in the form of photons. Not sure that changes anything - the point is that without photons bouncing off an object, we wouldn't become visually aware of it. If that doesn't give you pause, I guess I feel like you're not sufficiently in touch with the problem. Onward...

If I’m having hallucinations I’m going to get a second opinion — NOS4A2

How would you know you were having an hallucination? How would you know the second opinion was 'accurate' and as against what? Consensus? That's fine, and also what I would do - but it's not supportive of a DR position.

While you and Michael claim there is the proverbial veil blocking us from direct access to the world, I say that the veil blocks your access to the goings on of your own brain. I say this for the simple reason that the senses point outward. — NOS4A2

This is quite clearly incoherent: If we are veiled from the actions of our brain, we have no possible access to the outside world. We do not see things in our eyes - our eyes literally ships electrical signals to our brain. Without hte brain there is no possible mental image (or whatever you'd like to call it). Eyes (i.e the sense organ) objectively see/present nothing but "code" for lack of a better term. They do not contain or receive images. This much is an empirical truth and not part of the philosophical disagreement - which is why it seems to me you (and others) are not quite coming into contact with the facts prior to trying to determine some epistemic situation (there is a big spanner to this approach, but its not hard to overcome).

Again, this is why we have sophisticated imaging contraptions, specialized doctors, and brains in jars: so that we can better understand what is occurring in there. — NOS4A2

A clear mistake. Our senses are still our only access to any of this. None of it brings us closer to the objects we study in the epistemic sense. If there's a veil in the sense you want to call it (we don't), then that's present when you look down a microscope or interpret dye results etc..

claiming there exists things in the head that cannot be proven to exist, but because you believe you have a superior epistemological grasp of what is occurring behind your senses rather than in front of them. — NOS4A2

I don't even think you're in touch with the competing view point.

There are no "objects" in the head. That has never been claimed, so let's be clear: The images we see are there, whether or not you claim they are generated by the brain or not. If you're claiming they are not generated by the brain, you have a world of philosophy and neuroscience to battle against and an incredibly uphill battle it is, to explain how it is the apple on my table gets into my head(read: experience, i guess, noting hte empirical facts of perception).

Banno has understood this and made a different, more successful argument. I'd look there.

I do get the impression you both feel that scientific discoveries demand that we should accept the metaphysical picture that indirect realism seems to draw. — Richard B

Not quite, but it gives a default understanding which we would do well to be skeptical of displacing on philosophical grounds imo.

As indirect realism retreats into private first person experiences, science needs to find consensus in the public realm. — Richard B

This is an extreme error. Science doesn't 'need' to find anything, whatsoever. It follows a method and 'come what may'. In this case, we now understand that we do not receive images from without, but light which is turned into electrical signals, which go the brain - and then we have work to do. This isn't controversial. The fact that humans have private experiences is a fact, and not one which discussions of perception can do much for. There is no way for me to have your experiences.

If hydration directly processes H2O, why can't we say perception directly processes light? — Richard B

Because they are in no way similar processes, physically speaking. Different forms, substances, substrates, organs, results etc... It's a really bad analogy, is the reason this probably was not picked up.

You might say, we should keep "realism" and drop "direct/indirect" and understand we are causally embedded biological organisms whose process of perception supports interventions, coordinations, and manipulations of our environment. — Richard B

You might, but this would be to entirely miss the point of the question (which i think you're entire point about science does) by completely and utterly ignoring the fact that there is no answer anywhere in this discussion as to where we are to consider factually mediated perception direct or indirect. This is a matter of comparison and "the best we can do, in this particular realm where language is important for stability".

You're not even wrong. And I should stress this more clearly: When practicing science, with other scientists, consensus is king. That says nothing about the state of DR/IR theories. That we have shared perceptions (assuming everyone's system in a given thought experiment works right isn't controversial either). If DR is 'true' (or, the best description) this would be how it happens. If IR is 'true' (or, the best description) then this is how things work.

Neither theory runs against reality. That's why it's such a tense question. I understand the temptation to say what you're saying, but it just doens't touch anything. You're talking about standards and method. The thing Michael and I are, at the least trying to get you guys to deal with properly, is the fact accepted by both camps that there is no possible way for the apple on my desk to be in my head, and it snot possible that my mind is included in the objects it perceives. So there's gap - simple as.

That is, if I speak falsetto, you can say that is not my "real" voice. If you want to say that my real voice is what you hear when we're next to each other talking, but a recording of my voice isn't my real voice, that's fine. But none of that suggests there is this metaphysically true voice that can be meaningfully (and by "meaningfully" I mean that can be identified and discussed coherently) identfied.

Identifying that "real" voice is impossible. Is it the vibrations, the way you hear it, the way your ear drum vibrates? Is it still "real" if through helium? — Hanover

Hmm, I got you. I don't think this is doing a lot, because I can simply say your examples require other modifiers "speaking voice" in the first, or "tessitura" to be more technical.

It seems to me there is nothing missing or hard to grasp (i.e to talk about) in these uses. But i recognize 'use' gives meaning to things - I just, personally, hold that htis is an absolute cop out. If there were truly the way words 'worked' then no words would have shared meanings because anyone's personal use would be valid. But we correct each other. So there is some epistemic primacy to some uses, and I think thats far more widespread and meaningful than a lot do.

What you do call the difference between hearing your wife's 'real' voice when you're two feet away, and a recording from 2022 when you're on another continent?

But none of that suggests there is this metaphysically true voice that can be meaningfully (and by "meaningfully" I mean that can be identified and discussed coherently) identfied. — Hanover

This is exactly my intuition and experience. I can't understand what you think leads to this ambiguity? Either i'm hearing your voice, or a recording of it (which a phone call technically is). Nothing weird or airy fairy there, to me?

It would've been preferable to simply ask what I meant here. I mean, I think you're also being a bit combative and not quite capturing the most reasonable version of your argument.

You want to learn how to actually combat racism? Google Daryl Davies. Single handedly done more to combat racism than all the speech control efforts combined. — DingoJones

This, for instance, isn't the strongest thing to bring up as its very, very context-dependent and perhaps the only example of a similar approach working en masse (even then, Daryl's output isn't not 'masses'. KKK were mostly thwarted financially).

It wasn't an attack.

Yes, that's kind of what I was saying. The scientific method contradicts all (that I know of) religious commitments. Science only contradicts itself insofar as it gets pretty quickly updated by new information. That's a basic tenet of that method. I'm sure you'll agree.

Religions contradict each other and are not amenable to update in that way. That's the issue in comparison. The fact that various philosophical commitments run into each other is mediated by assessment of the results of the scientific method (Excluding outliers(i have been explicit about this)). Religious thinking is not (excluding outliers). So even if you want to move on to 'secular' rather than 'scientific' that's cool, I understand but the above stands.

It feels to me like you're purposefully not quite contacting the point you initially wanted to talk about. If the issue is that secular views are incompatible, sure. But I don't know anyone who would kill someone over their belief in Direct Realism or Incompatibilism (hehehe). This is what I mean by metaphysical primacy. If you think Islam and physicalism are on the same level in this way, I smell a whiff of dishonesty.

Just imagine the historical films done about Trump decades from now. Biden might be forgotten like Gerald Ford. Trump won't be. That's for sure — ssu

Haha, that's true. I wonder how it will look.
I recall on a forum i was on about 20 years ago there was a user who was highly conservative and was absolutely convinced History would look back on Bush II as one of the best presidents ever. Yeesh.

I can't quite grasp the point of the response to the Rhetoric comment. That's not a serious picture or anything, right? And unbecoming of a President to be so unserious but uhh - what are the first five of those more-than-a-thousand words?

No.

I am doing what you've asked: comparing religious and scientific worldviews (you've named mainly philosophical views, btw).

The comparison I've made is clear. The dressing you're putting on this is fine, but it isn't relevant to the OP. There are no "scientific" worldviews which run into each other. There are theories which compete. That is not true for the religious world. They are directly incompatible.

Taking on any given secular view, other than hard atheism, does not do this. Choosing a religious worldview which runs up against scientific method or experimental results is damning as by comparison.

An object can't exist outside a subject-object relationship. But a thing persists when no subject is around. — Dawnstorm

This is profound. I've not got much else to say here - but this statement is a clear explication of exactly why an IRist cannot really understand a DR position.

“No Christians are Muslim” is a trivial observation, not an argument. — Esse Quam Videri

The argument included the first half of the concept. Please do not ignore half of hte point and then zoom in on something.

Secular worldviews also make incompatible metaphysical and moral claims. — Esse Quam Videri

We're not comparing them. We're comparing religious and scientific worldviews (notice that's not "secular" either). You're drawing way outside the lines.

Your substantive there against misses the delineation. Religious world views being incompatible damns them all. Not so with secular views. That is the point and it is not moved by what you've (relatively accurately, just misplaced imo) pointed out.

It was totally surprising. Totally out of the ordinary. But he assumed it could be done, because he really thinks so little of Europeans — ssu

These are the assumptions I have absolutely no interest in taking on board. This, and my alternative seem equally plausible. I think it takes someone in camp 1 from the previous thing to land on this side, as a statement rather htan speculation.

Then of course there's the idea that all of this was part of the "Art of the Deal". That this was 4D Chess and Trump gives first an outrageous and demeaning bid, and then takes home something totally else.

Well, if so, just what on Earth did he get? What did Denmark now "reasonably" accept that made everything first to be worth it? We don't know. — ssu

I'm not really sure what's so hard to swallow in this (albeit, your framing is highly prejudicial - but reasonable imo).

He's probably secured further defense positions and tactical mineral access. Which is what he wanted all along. Its just a question whether he's stumbled into it or there's some "art of hte deal" thing going on (note, I have already dismissed "4D Chess" as a cultish concept. But he is a Businessman). To me. It is not inconceiveable he predicted how the chatter would go and leading up to DAVOS, had this in mind all along). It's just also not inconceivable your framing is accurate.

You're right - we don't know. That's the point of hedging at this stage. Thinking yourself into knots about the President being senile or whatever overtly dumb thing you can claw on to (not you, but the more unhinged along these same lines) is bad for you and does nothing for anyone else given there's no real evidence at this stage of how this all came about.

Trump posting himself (or, at least, someone in his feed) this AI picture tells more than a thousand words: — ssu

What are the first five? I have a feeling a huge amount of rhetoric is doing lifting in response to this thing.

That's a biblical truth, so It's not really an assumption I don't think? But I agree - it makes the whole discussion incoherent.

:up:

You are not adequately coming into contact with the competing views.

Plenty of materialists are religious. Plenty of idealists are religious. But no Christians are Muslim.

You are missing the delineation entirely, in service of keeping a dead question alive.

That very much may not be hte case. https://www.ms.now/news/dhs-denies-that-ice-used-a-5-year-old-as-bait-to-catch-his-dad?utm_

Vance has commented, as have the agencies involved. I think it takes assumption to take this narrative seriously at this stage. Being predisposed to eat up social media posts which suggest things you're predisposed to believe is something I'd suggest guarding against. Fact check things before getting up in arms.

Now, who is making assumptions? — Questioner

There is no assumption. IT is a direct inference from the fact that you made an absolute claim which was false. I infer, then, you are not partial to saying "Well, Meloni likes him" (or Orban, or whoever) Which she does. Because she's conservative. ITs a logical inference. Not an assumption. Otherwise, i agree. Its a professional courtesy from most leaders.

I have eyes to see, and ears to hear. There is nothing respectable about him. — Questioner

It is factually untrue. Your opinion is something else, and you're entitled to it. That wasn't what you claimed. I don't play games. You were wrong to say what you said. It's not an opinion or something your eyes and ears can tell you, unless you're going to accept that several world leaders in the free world like Trump and respect him. Being honest isn't giving up your position.

Yes, he's been receiving a lot of death threats. — Questioner

Jesus Christ. Just condemn lying about hte president on National TV. There is no evidence he has received death threats as a result of this. That has been tied to his advocacy about Gun Control.

It is really important to not be wrong.

Definitely with you there!
Semi, but there's an insanely big (defamatory) leap between "babbling" and "senile". That's hte care I was indicating is needed.

Sorry, i meant latter, clearly. You haven't said anything that could've drawn me to the alternate. Sorry about that.

A bruise isn't something dangerous. — ssu

True - but its a 'win' for a certain pre-disposition toward Trump's activities. I guess I'm trying to avoid the predisposition. It could be totally fumbling. But it could be what he intended all along, sacrificing looking a certain way to his detractors in the process. That would be respectable. I try to be charitable i suppose, having been trained on judgments which are almost always intended to trade of a set of facts most favourable to a defendant.

Its seem the DRists among us have retreated into semantic arguments.

So be it. Onward we move..

I think you're being unnecessarily combative.

"publication" is an amorphous concept. Standing in the town square, giving everyone around you a taste of your nonsense is protected (good). A badly worded joke on social media is not (bad). Publication usually requires a benchmark of dissemination to reach an actionable level. Usually, a non-public person is not going ot reach that. So the Online Safety Act (Harmful Digital Communications Act here in NZ - cant remember the analogous in the US) steps in to capture those who don't actually meet any establish criteria for causing harm. The multitudes of detentions along these lines are chilling. And are wrong, in principle imo. Anyway.. The initial delineation..

That's a serious problem (to me), and while Dingo is quite stepping on the right tiles here, that remains within your analysis, to be addressed. The ECHR does have problems. But that's an entirely different conversation and suggesting that's Dingo's next step is not good faith.

Definitely misunderstood. Sorry mate. I agree.

Excellent :)

I was referring the couple of trans threads we were exchanging on. All is well :)

Are they clowns, or am I the blind dude who is not seeing what is going on? — javi2541997

I think this, but I also think you're not a clown. Its entirely plausible (and indeed, seems maybe at the 51% probability mark) that it's just the shit show it looks like, and he's a total moron who has lost it.

But it also seems to me entirely plausible that, while "4d Chess" is some kind of invention of a cultish aspect of his base, there's intentionality to these things and he's perhaps willing to be seen the way you say above, while having achieved his initial goal and moving on with his... plan (that was hard to say lmao)

I don't know. But it seems plausible to me, and he seems happy enough to say it may be true.

when the institution is oriented to protect and spread American interests, presence, and culture. — javi2541997

That doesn't seem wholly accurate. It was set up (by Europe - not imposed by American) to prevent Soviet encroachment, and to ensure Europe retained American defense interest, rather than American withdrawing like after WWII. But you're right in terms of the conflict of interest.

That is not really true though, is it?

Seems more like wishful thinking for those who do genuinely have no respect for him which is fine. But Machado, Meloni, Orban, Milei, apparently, Rutte. They are just leaders you do not like. which is fine. But its best not to make statements that are untrue about a President. Like Cameron Kasky is finding out.

To say that the brain is like a radio/tv tuner/receiver of all that goes on elsewhere seems a bit too much. — PoeticUniverse

I agree, but its a really interesting potential solution. It would essentially hold all the explanatory power needed. It just.. isn't supported by much except first-hand experience which is notoriously unhelpful in sorting out consciousness issues. I thikn dismissing it out of hand, in the current situation, is also a bit far.

As someone who lives in NZ, I don't think you have that right. Can you provide the blog?

The semantics are. That's all. Extremely obviously.

So when the current American-style racism — ssu

I can't conceive of what you're talking about. The current claims about any kind of widespread racism in the US seem, factually, ridiculous. The tenuous connection you're making between Nazism and US policy is unserious, sorry to say. I can't really engage it.

we shouldn't forget all the positive aspects that people get from religion and their faith. — ssu

I disagree, but understand what you're saying - we should be able to extract them, not have to prop up the rest on their behalf. The aspects of tribalism that I think are good seem to me only 'good' in a naiive analysis. They necessarily lead to the types of out-group negativity which reduces social cohesion when taken beyond their immediate and tangible effect of, lets say easing the overall burden of children care and rearing. But that also means necessarily restricting children to certain social, political and moral precepts. That seems to be why places like the Mid East are how they are.

I think suggesting there's anything remotely close to this anywhere in the USA is tantamount to a lie. I understand we're probably going to have just wave and walk on by on this one, but the premise being that the US "is a racist country" is risible to me.

how religions contradict each other and how secularism offers a way out. In contrast, you spent no time at all reviewing the ways in which secular ideologies contradict each other. — Esse Quam Videri

Because its utterly irrelevant. Secular world views do not claim metaphysical primacy. Religions do. Their inconsistency is damning to them all. Not so with secular views.