Absolutely. For example: what is the ontological bedrock of physical reality? No matter how deeply we explore, we can't know we've reached rock bottom.Are there things in the physical universe that we can never find out? — Vera Mont
I watched the video, and read the Brookings report. The person in the video grossly misrepresents the report. Brookings does not state a plan, it lists options - and identifies potential negative and positive consequences of each. The author's premise is that there is some secret plan to go to war with Iran, and he interprets points in the Brookings document to in light of this premise. The fact that certain events have unfolded with some of the anticipated consequences is a testament to Brookings' analysis, not an implication that one particularly nefarious path has been chosen by the US, among all the permutations of paths outlined by Brookings.the truth is that they have been planning for such a war since at least 2009. — Tzeentch
It's misleading to call this "funelling money... to fund the Steele dossier" because it suggests intent by the Clinton campaign. The campaign was not involved with the decisions on what to investigate (other than approving opposition research) nor on whom to hire to conduct that research, nor did they direct anyone on invent facts to support a narrative.the crime you're alleging is what the Clinton campaign did when they funnelled money through Perkins Coie to fund the Steele dossier, which they then hid as "legal fees — NOS4A2
I'm not challenging the fact that it's verification that the child has some knowledge of someone who's dead, and the knowledge was not obtained from contemporary sources, but rather due to something paranormal. Although it's consistent with reincarnation, it could be some other mechanism - and I was lamenting that there's no way to test what is actually going on- to know if it is reincarnation, or some form of ESP.But if a child's alleged memories of a previous life can be validated against documentary records and witness testimony, that amounts to some form of verification. — Wayfarer
Or it could be considered a discontinuity: you are being destroyed and a new entity, an exact physical copy, is being produced. I tend to think there's no right answer; all answers are paradigm dependent.In the Teletransporter cases, someone who is not you, is exactly continuous with you. — AmadeusD
In terms of strict identity, we can consider ourselves AT a point of time: RogueAI at t1 is identical to RogueAI at t1.But you can never be identical to yourself in even the shortest amounts of time — RogueAI
If memories aren't preserved in my after-life consciousness, in what sense is that still me? It hardly seems like something to look forward to.Consciousness doesn't, on it's face, consist in memories, so I see no reason to have them at-base — AmadeusD
Criminal defendants forfeit some of their liberties, as noted in the Appellate court ruling:The ability to criticize is a precious right. — NOS4A2
The Special Counsel's filing on that appeal listed a number of instances in which these have occurred (see pages 3-7). Trump's attorneys did not dispute these allegations.there is little to no evidence these threats even occurred — NOS4A2
How does voting for a 3rd party (that has zero chance of winning) hold either the winner or loser accountable? Ross Perot received a whopping 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Walk me through how Clinton and/or Bush were held accountable (and for what)?It's only through voting for a third party that corruption will be held accountable. — boethius
I'm not sure what it means to be "strictly caused", but there's a clear, predictable connection between Trump's verbal attacks on named individuals and threats by Trump supporters to that individual. Do you deny that? Do you seriously think Trump is unaware? For that matter, it wouldn't even matter if Trump were too stupid to see this - the effect is obvious.The threats, if there really are any, are strictly caused by the motives of the threatener. — NOS4A2
So... it seems you feel they deserve to be threatened, irrespective of its impact on the administration of justice. So I don't take your legal analysis seriously - you grope for all available rationalizations.If they didn’t abuse their power they wouldn’t get threats. It’s as simple as that. What I applaud is retributive justice. — NOS4A2
I recommend reading the DC Appellate Court ruling that upheld Chutkin's gag order. It provides important context that is applicable to all the gag orders imposed on Trump.The Supreme Court has deemed gag orders constitutional only where it protects the right to a fair trial. — NOS4A2
A non-point. All gag orders entail prior restraint.The defendant has the constitutional right to a fair trial, but in this case he was gagged using prior restraint — NOS4A2
"Guide my reasoning"? It's perfectly rational to rely on authorities, as long as one doesn't treat them as infallible and remains open to revising one's view when there are compelling reasons to do so. A Trumpist dogmatically stating their opinion isn't compelling.You appeal to authority to guide your reasoning. — NOS4A2
Re-read that post and you'll see that I'm open to argument and evidence. You seem upset that I don't simply embrace your dogmatic statement.The problem is you’ll defer to them even when they’re wrong or unjust...not applying a single thought of your own. — NOS4A2
I don't think censorship is preferable to free speech, but it's a leap to call the gag order "censorship". As I mentioned, there are no withheld facts, the gag order is narrow, and the constraint is temporary, and it has not caused Trump harm. You've provided no facts or reasoning to support your contention, and have ignored what I said about the Constitution. Dogmatism is not persuasive.If you don’t know or understand why free speech is preferable to censorship — NOS4A2
I'm sure there are such people, but I haven't noticed Democratic leaders promoting that sort of thing. On the other hand:Being a conservative, to an anti-conservative, is tantamount to being a literal Nazi. — AmadeusD
My bad, I jumped to the conclusion that you were parrotting GOP talking points. Sorry.I never said they were targeting conservatives. I said they were targeting Trump. — NOS4A2
You tacitly acknowledged threats of violence occur, and applauded it:One of the greatest stupidities of anti-Trumpism is to attribute to Trump's words some ill effect — NOS4A2
Trump's "criticisms" are nothing more than personal attacks, contained disinformation, serve no positive purpose, and will almost certainly result in threats of violence — Relativist
The corrupt deserve to be threatened, and it is this corruption that almost certainly leads to the threats. — NOS4A2
Yes there is. There's testimony from the Proud Boys acknowledging they were triggered by Trump's encouragement to "stand down and stand by".There is no evidence for it. — NOS4A2
Being a Democrat appears to anti-Democrat bigots as a conflict of interest. No evidence of personal gain has been identified. Loren Merchan works for a firm that does digital campaigning and online fundraising. Those activities will continue irrespective of the outcome of the case.even the appearance of a conflict of interest is inappropriate — NOS4A2
I had asked you to explain how Trump was hurt by the gag order, but it seems you believe it helps! So what's the problem?It is also politically stupid. People notice when you justify censorship on such stupid grounds. It makes a martyr out of the censored. — NOS4A2
You're parrotting a popular wing conspiracy theory. It is the irrational perception that the justice system is targeting Conservatives that is the problem. That perception is the product of cherry picking cases and proclaiming the allegation is proved- per the typical approach of conspiracy theorists. This is exactly what I was referring to: the GOP is encouraging this irrational conclusion and thus undermining the system.The actions of the justice system itself is what undermines the justice system and leads to threats against those involved. — NOS4A2
I'm fine with getting information out in the public, but it's ironic that this case is about Trump working to prevent information about himself from becoming public. Do you agree we're all better off knowing what he did: the affairs and election-interfering coverup?Trump was absolutely right to point it out, and we’re all better off for knowing it. — NOS4A2
You have judged the Judge to be corrupt based on what? — Relativist
A familial connection to a daughter engaged in political campaigning does not entail a judge acting unfairly. What WOULD imply unfairness would be a pattern of questionable, one-sided decisions. Trump may hope that occurs because it will be grounds for overturning a conviction on appeal.He was censored for social media posts that point out the judge has a vested interest in Trump’s conviction, in Trump’s election loss, insofar as it pleases his daughter’s political clientele, who pay her ridiculous amounts of DNC donor cash to help them win elections. — NOS4A2
He can, so why doesn't he? Attacking a judge's daughter is not a defense of the crimes charged. At best, it's childish. At worst, it taints the jury pool and could lead to violence.Why can’t Trump defend himself outside of trial? — NOS4A2
The corrupt deserve to be threatened — NOS4A2
Gag orders are not uncommon, and are arguably constitutional (see this) - because there is a tension between personal free speech and the right (by both defense and prosecution) to a fair trial. Trump's previous appeal of a gag order was upheld, and it seems like this one would be also. Trump's "criticisms" are nothing more than personal attacks, contained disinformation, serve no positive purpose, and will almost certainly result in threats of violence. The political activities of a family member (or of a judge, for that matter) have no bearing on the ability of the judge to be an impartial arbiter.So the judge, using prior restraint, expanded an unconstitutional gag order against Trump to shield family members of the court from Trump’s criticism — NOS4A2
The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice. — Mikie
The problem is complicated by the fact that it is PERCEIVED corruption that triggers populism - and those perceptions can be manipulated through lies.It is corruption that is the catalyst for populism. So while populism in ways is a problematic phenomenon, it is a reaction to a problematic status quo. This insight is what almost always lacks in discussions about how bad populism is. — Tzeentch
Protestants generally defer the Apostolic Fathers as well, but they deny they were necessarily of one voice. Regardless, the Reformation was a reaction to the undeniable corruption that grew in the Catholic Church. If the institution couldn't be trusted - where else to place their faith other than Scripture and reasoning?Relativist, maybe I believe some things uncritically. But I believe what the Catholic Church teaches, partly because I study documents from the Early Church. If you read them, I think you'll know that they confirm Catholicism instead of Protestantism. — BillMcEnaney
Agreed. Here's a Protestant who also agrees.Thanks to sola scriptura, Protestants have splintered into about 47,000 sects. — BillMcEnaney
Aren't you referring to the change in entropy over time? If you just mean the fixed value of entropy for a state of affairs, it explains nothing.Entropy. Entropy isn't contingent on living things. — Benj96
That is essentially my point. One cannot point to a set of necessary and sufficient properties as the essence of a thing, so what's left other than the assumption that there is some unanalyzable, immaterial aspect of a thing. The notion that a bread wafer is essentially flesh is based on some such assumption. Why accept it, other than to rationalize Catholic dogma?The guiding question of Aristotle's Metaphysics is the question of 'being qua being", that is, what it is for something to be the thing that it is. What is it, for example, that distinguishes man from other beings. And, what it is distinguishes Socrates from other men. The puzzle is laid out in Plato's Phaedo. Each attempted solution proves to be problematic. — Fooloso4
I agree we'll expand what we can see - but there are things we will never see. For example, it's possible there is a multiverse - but because each universe is causally isolated - we'll never have empirical verification. At best, it will be entailed by theory - but theories that can't be empirically verified are less credible. That's a problem with String Theory - it's an elegant theory that explains a lot, but it defies empirical verification.Just suggesting our technology will improve and allow us to see things we can't see now. But there's no way of knowing how much farther it will let us see, or if it will let us see as far as we need to for this line of thinking. — Patterner