Regardless, you failed to specify. You went straight from "it's not 100% accurate" to "it's a lie". Yet you complained that all of Trumps inaccurate statements are treated as lies. That seems like a double standard to me. — Echarmion
It seems a very odd hill to choose to die on. Most media outlets have some political bias. Almost all of them have a significant economic bias. There are plenty stories that go unheard or are badly mangled by the media. When it comes to inaccuracies in major news outlets, Trump is the last thing I'd worry about. The misrepresentations about Trump are just incredibly minor compared to some of the other shit that goes on. — Echarmion
Who called him an "admitted rapist"? Some opinion piece somewhere? Have a source for that? — Echarmion
Isn't it entirely possible it's mostly lies, and claiming it's anything else is "muddying the waters"? How could anyone possibly know with certainty which statements are intentional and which are accidental lies? — Echarmion
Wait. You just said how very important it is to distinguish between lies, repeating nonsense, hyperbole etc. And here you are, claiming all they do is lie. Why don't you apply your own standard to them and try to analyse each statement in detail? — Echarmion
You claimed it was misrepresentative to only play a portion of the pussy-grabbing audio. I pointed out that I had heard the entire audio on CNN, so you are either misrepresting it yourself, or you are referring to some occasion in which only a portion was played. Notice that you object to playing only a portion of the audio out of context, while you wish to set aside the general context I brought up. Omitting that portion of the audio, on occasion, does not result in someone getting a false impression of his character. Shouldn't that be what's important? — Relativist
I heard the entire audio on CNN, and it included everything you said. No one has ever suggested that this isolated clip shows he's a sexual predator, but it does add context to the looooong list of sexual misconduct : he's cheated on every wife he's ever had numerous times (including Melania shortly after giving birth); there are numerous allegations of unwelcome sexual advances; he felt entitled to visit the Miss Universe contestants while they were dressing....the list goes on. His behavior toward women is indefensible. If you don't accept that, then you're burying your head in the sand. — Relativist
Trump utters an enormous number of falsehoods.
Some are downright lies (intentional untruths), some are repeating nonsense he's heard from idiots like Alex Jones, some is just pure stupidity, and yes- some is hyperbole, and much of that is inappropriate (e.g. telling police officers it's ok to rough up the people they arrest).Is it CNN's job to analyze each false utterance and discern which category they belong to? Discerning fact from fiction seems sufficient, and Trump could avoid the negative interpretations if he'd strive to make factual statements. — Relativist
Nevertheless, I see the difference between opinion and facts. My steady diet of CNN has not impaired that. Contrast that with die-hard Trump supporters who are in denial of any negative reporting about Trump. I can respect a Trump supporter who likes his policies, if they are realistic about what sort if man he is. I have zero respect for someone who make excuses for everything he does. — Relativist
Give me some notable examples of CNN spreading falsehoods. I want to understand what you'rw talking about. — Relativist
To be fair, this is also true of Trumpist bubbles, but the frequency of those are almost negligible as far as I can tell. — NOS4A2
Well I am getting a bit too old to go seeking these things out. Maybe an opportunity will present itself one day. I would still expect at MOST, a loss of the SENSE of self. I can't really wrap my head around what "loss of self" even means. — ZhouBoTong
And that is exactly what I am trying to tease out here. What EXACTLY is the difference? — ZhouBoTong
How do you know that is not what is happening during drugs or meditation? — ZhouBoTong
Based on definitions of words "I" exist. To claim otherwise is extreme, and I would demand stark evidence to entertain such a notion...just like I would for a supernatural entity. The only evidence I have against either is that I see no evidence of either. Honestly, I am not even sure what people mean...if you lose your "self" can I now destroy your body and this lost consciousness will exist elsewhere? — ZhouBoTong
Well I have experienced psychedelics. But no matter how far down the rabbit hole I go, there is always a nagging little "I' that never leaves. What the "I" is saying is "you are on drugs, don't get carried away here." I would think drugs would make it easier to identify a partial loss of self...the first step in losing the self would be forgetting you are on drugs. If I know I am on drugs, then "I' has not gone anywhere. If "I" am not on drugs, who or what is?
To be fair, I have never done...is it called DMT? I think that is the one that is supposed to be directly tied to the loss of self...maybe? — ZhouBoTong
Can't you have this experience just by drinking too much? You wake up the next day to find video of yourself dancing on a table that you don't remember? How were the machines operating if you don't remember operating them? Heck, even entirely sober, have you ever got in your car and backed out of your driveway, then paused and thought, how did I get here? Or any other thing that just happens on auto pilot while we are thinking about something else? Our brain can do a lot with minimal to no intention. — ZhouBoTong
I can't say you are wrong. But a loss of self seems to fail as the simplest explanation. It feels like claiming there is a god. A HUGE claim, with very limited evidence. — ZhouBoTong
Some people would say they are not being unethical. They aren't breaking any rules. — schopenhauer1
I don’t quite believe you think it’s that relative. If a society/group considers that donating a chewing gum makes up for murder, they would be plain wrong, wouldn’t they? — Congau
If by morality you mean moral character, that’s right. And I think that’s what you are trying to measure with your scheme. Isn’t it? The issue is the moral worth of the person and I don’t know what that would mean other than character. — Congau
Right. The action is still good, and the actor is neither good nor bad based on this action.
Of course it’s difficult or impossible for us, the observers, to know his intention. That’s why we make shortcut judgments based on his actions, and that’s why your scheme might seem to work on the surface. We can’t look inside a person’s head, so we assess him based on the circumstantial evidence we have.
That would be the way we actually judge character, but it’s highly inaccurate and often unjust. We look at the drunkard who neglects wife and kids for his booze, which of course is bad, but we don’t know what brought him there, what tragedies he may be fighting against. Therefore, we shouldn’t judge anyone, if we can refrain from it, and a system like yours is an invitation to superficial judgment. — Congau
ay of thinking has an absolute truth value (which makes it an ethical theory). Very good. Let’s test that. — Congau
I would say that a good person is one who is inclined to do good actions. He has a mental disposition that makes him do what is good when it’s time to act. This is what is called virtue. A person possesses a degree of virtue now at this moment - he is now a good or bad person.
People can change. He may have been a terrible person in his youth, a murderer even, but now he has grown virtuous and that depends on the mental disposition and habits that he has now acquired. It doesn’t depend on what he has actually done, he may not have had the chance, or the change may have come over him relatively recently, but if something came up now, he would do the right thing. — Congau
So, how can we tell that he is now a good person? We can’t. We don’t know what is going on inside him. We can only judge from what we see from outside. We acknowledge his good acts, subtract his bad ones and guess his inner state based on that, but we may be wrong. An extremely good deed, curing cancer or creating peace in the middle east, doesn’t make him a good person unless he did it for the right reason, that is a desire to do good. (Maybe he did it to make money) — Congau
Why is creationism mutually exclusive of theoretical sciences of the same field? — LuckilyDefinitive
So people are judged morally in any given society by adding and subtracting good and bad actions according to the standards of their society. So what? — Congau
Regardless of what those standards are, whether they are very strict or very lenient from our perspective, one would assume that the average member would have an average score, that is a balance between good and bad. It is pretty much a tautology: The standard of any society is determined by how the members generally behave, and how the members generally behave will be identical to the standard. Those who subscribe to the standard, the members in general and the average member, will naturally accept those who are like themselves, those who hit the balance. (They will condemn those below and praise those above.) — Congau
If DCT means Divine Command Theory, then your objection of Aleph Numbers' not answering your proposition is false. Because all one needs to do to destroy your DCT is to not believe in the divine. Then the DCT falls apart immediately. — god must be atheist
B. is that even the DCT is not objective. It was designed by someone, or thought up, or invented, to the faithful, by god. So it does not rest on some general, a priori unassailable logic or truth, it is arbitrary. Arbitrary, by god, for sure, (to the religious), but still arbitrary. — god must be atheist