Do you agree that on the surface it looks bad to pursue the Bidens in this way, since Joe is a political opponent?

No, I do not.

Fiona Hill opined that the efforts to look into the Bidens was a "political errand." Was she lying? Was she simply mistaken? Is there no possibility she was right?

There is always a possibility she could be right.

Can you offer any evidence that Trump was actively battling corruption in Ukraine -other than the Biden matter - that predates the whistleblower complaint?

Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there. He was clearly concerned about Ukraine’s involvement in the Russia hoax, their election meddling with the DNC, Biden’s involvement with the Burisma.

You could be right. Excuse my tinfoil hat, but I would even argue the CIA or at least the State Department had its hand in the Ukraine revolution of 2014. So I worry they would be more protective of what went on there than otherwise.

My point being that it was the role of the CIA to do the investigation, rather than the president, because the president could be vulnerable to accusations of political expediency.

It’s a Ukrainian company in Ukrainian jurisdiction. As for American government officials I think that’s up to the justice dept. The president was only asking the Ukrainian president to look into it

And what did the CIA have to say about Trump getting involved in the investigation of Biden? Or did Trump neglect to tell them. Presumably they were already aware of said corruption from their Ukrainian spies.

I’m not sure what they said.

Roger Scruton once said that it was an "impossible proposition" to think that a Muslim "from the hinterlands of Asia" could produce a child loyal to a secular European state. The guy was a rabid islamophobic, anti-semite (I've cover this in another thread), sexist, and homophobe. Ah, but he wrote so elegantly!!!

You merchants of offence are quite predictable. I get to watch you smear the dead because of your thin skin while you pretend to know what decency is.

You are aware there evidence of wrongdoing., right? Are you just saying the evidence is inadequate to meet some standard of burden of proof?

You started out critical of me for not basing my personal judgments on the legal standard. I think you came to accept that outside a courtroom, such personal judgments are reasonable as long as one remains open to reevaluating as more evidence is available. But given your initial reaction, I'm wondering if you are simply presuming Trump innocent (you labelled this a basic human right) because you feel he hasn't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that it?

I would go further than presume he is innocent. I believe he has done nothing wrong, and more, I think he was right and obligated, morally and as a public servant of the country, to look into possible corruption between US and Ukrainian officials. The notion that he shouldn’t do so because it might harm a Democrat’s political chances seems absolutely absurd to me and I feel I am living in Clown World for having to argue against it.

You once mentioned that Trump is violating Biden’s due process, so that’s why I brought up the presumption of innocence: to remind you of Trump’s due process in the hopes we could come to an understanding. Due process is not a legal standard for arbitrary reasons, but because it best guarantees justice. If justice doesn’t factor into your personal judgments, there is nothing wrong with that, but I I have doubts that you can remain fair and just while doing so.

Either way, I am prepared to be proven proven foolish in all of this. I could be completely mistaken, crimes might come to light, I could be proven a dupe, and I will admit that I was wrong if it happens.

Yes, artificially changed in the sense that you can remove, replace or alter the body, including parts of the body associated with sex.

But Sex is determined through natural development of an organism which begin at the earliest stages of life, not through alterations of physical features and body parts of an adult. Such development cannot be erased.

I'm gonna disagree with you there, I have changed my sex through hormones and surgery

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

That's just not true. First, nature doesn't 'decide' anything (nature isn't a person). And second, the whole point is that it is not 'disguising', but altering. That's a big difference. Someone who changes their sex has changed their sex, not disguised it.

I was speaking figuratively, which is common throughout language. By “decided by nature” I mean genes and hormones, not some doctor with a steady hand, determine and develop sex at the earliest stages of a human’s life. So no, they have not changed any sex, they have merely altered the body in such a way to convince themselves that they have.

That’s their prerogative. But I appreciate when someone such as yourself seeks clarification in good faith instead of assumption and accusation. So thank you.

That’s my only point. You can only alter or disguise, through force, what nature has already decided.

Of course not. It’s quite amazing what we can do as a species, especially when it helps people.

You: yes, but if you change your sex on a Wednesday, you didn't change it on a Tuesday

That’s not even paraphrasing what I said. I said sex changes are artificial, which your pretended was contradictory even though it wasn’t. One can also artificially change their hair color, their skin color. Sex change can occur naturally in nature, but the ones you propose are artificial, man made, and there is nothing profound about pointing out the obvious.

Clearly there was, and regardless of how much desire there has been for a Trump impeachment, the impeachment trial is in fact about justice. Trying to obfuscate Trump's crimes is unpatriotic at best...

What crime would that be?

No. I said I could drag them to the store if I want. That is a type of control over their bodies. It is not absolute control, but they do not have absolute sovereignty. You are referring to some type of sovereignty of will.

I’d like to see you try. Of course it’s not as easy as you say, and can only imagine yourself more powerful than everyone to do it. You have to fantasize because you lack control, you have no authority over anyone’s body unless they bestow it to you.

Again, this is only related to autonomy of will. If I am chained up, I can THINK anything I want. But my physical sovereignty (the power I have over my own body) is taken away.

The will is the body. Thinking is an act of the body, and you cannot make anyone think a certain way, speak a certain way, to be calm, to be quiet, to go to sleep...nothing. It is their choice, their responsibility, because they have absolute authority over themselves. You have no authority save for the one you fantasize in your head. Only through force, violence and coercion can you live out that fantasy.

Why are you calling the Senate trial a "show trial"? I'd have expected you to consider the Republican-led trial to be a REAL trial. If you think he's innocent of wrongdoing, a trial is a perfect opportunity to establish that.

I call the whole charade a show trial because the process is for the purpose of politics and propaganda, not justice. They’ve been trying to impeach Trump even before he was sworn in. It’s an unjust affair. There was no crime. There was no wrong doing.

It’s less pointless than your observation that one can change their sex by altering their body. You can change someone’s skin color by giving them a tattoo. You can change their hair color by dying their hair. These are artificial, not naturally occurring.

By artificial I mean man made rather than occurring naturally. No contradiction there.

For those interested, the house just voted to send articles of impeachment to the senate. The show trial continues after a hiatus.

Of course sex can be changed, but these changes would be wholly artificial.

(I gather that you work at a NGO or a non-profit. Most capitalists, a cursed lot, wouldn't waste company time on this crap.).

You'd be surprised. Woke capitalism is good money.

I 100% agree with you, but the super social justice warriors think that just being white makes you racist, just being male makes you sexist,sometimes even just being straight makes you homophobic and just being cis makes you transphobic. They are wrong, they also beleive that not treating minorities of any kind like special little snowflakes you are (insert minority here)phobic, and a s three minorities, no just treat me like a normal person, thanks.

Racists span the color spectrum. There is a pernicious group-think in it. People want to cling to their race, perhaps so they can claim someone else’s achievements or victim hood as their own. It saves them from the necessarily time consuming work of thinking and passing judgement on the level of an individual. One dissolves his individuality in an amorphous, disparate group, identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.

I’ve already provided you exculpatory evidence which you dismissed and/or pooh-poohed. I attempted to refute your opinion on the facts, but when I did so you claimed I was incapable of having a reasonable discussion, which suspiciously allowed you to avoid my arguments entirely.

That’s false, I did not dismiss “the facts” because they were partisan or expressed by democrats, but because they did not suggest any criminal intent or wrong doing or criminal activity. This is evidenced by my direct response to your list of facts, which you then used to accuse me of “denying the obvious”. I explicitly asked for evidence of motivations, ie any statement from the accused that might suggest he wanted investigations into political opponents so as to influence the 2020 elections, and your “facts” provided nothing of the sort.

It was you who accused me of writing things that sounded like I got it from Hannity and Levin, none of whom I watch, and which I proved to be false by showing where I actually heard the idea: the Wallstreet Journal Editorial Board. The partisan bickering was yours all along.

I think the irony here is that their insistence that their “whiteness” is harmful is itself a form of white supremacy. They see themselves and their “whiteness” as a force supreme and primary to other similar qualia. So it’s taking white supremacy and attempting to run with it in another direction.

Yes, his art criticism and defense of beauty were very important to me. I’m not a religious man but he showed me that I need not be spiritually impoverished because of it, that I need not vanquish the sacred and the beautiful because I do not believe in gods. He reminded me that with beauty life can be worth living.

And yet if I want to physically assault another human, it is easy...what am I missing? I can easily violate their sovereignty...? You say I have no control...but if I am significantly physically stronger than you, I can literally control you for as long as I care to. I can't make you cure cancer, but I can certainly make you go to the store (as I drag you there).

Yes, you can attempt to violate someone’s sovereignty through violence and coercion. But even so they would need to acquiesce to your demands and willingly give you what you want. They could also spit in your face and defy you to the bitter end. This is because you have no authority over their bodies and actions.

I don't need anyone to stand still to violate their sovereignty. And "choosing" is only one limited aspect of sovereignty. Absolute sovereignty would mean no one (and no-thing) has power over my body but myself. A hurricane could take away my sovereignty just as any human could. Aren't their millions of bacteria living in my body? Did I approve their residence? Even if we suggest that most of those are helpful, I still want the bad ones out.

Yes, only you have power over your body. Even if you were chained to a wall and left for dead you could still resist any impositions. Only you are responsible for your actions. Only you can choose how to live your life.

Nice try, but I noted the need to make an effort to understand all the available facts, whereas Trump clearly ignores evidence when making his accusations. Besides, it's one thing to make a private judgment and quite another to publicly defame someone with an accusation.

Nice try but you just publicly stated why you assume his guilt, and did so while suppressing exculpatory evidence, dismissing the testimony of the accused and other witnesses with a hand wave while accepting as faith the testimony of the accusers. Believe it or not but there are strong reasons why this sort of reasoning is unacceptable in criminal trials.

A “best explanation” may be plausible, but not necessarily correct, especially when these “facts” are derived from a one-sided, political show trial and not any sober and fair examination.

Good read, thanks for writing that.

A lot of morality is traditional. The wisdom of generations attest to their merits and faults in a process that develops an ethics over time, a sort of historical trial and error. In that sense it is organic. There is an effort at the individual level to act out these ethics whether by habit or societal pressure, but there is still this traditional relationship between the dead, the living, and the yet to be born. For the individual it might be best to cultivate rather than destroy these traditions.

I suppose to avoid all out war one ethics may best supersede another through leading by example rather than imposing an ethics by force.

The argument is that infinite regresses are impossible. So that leads to there must only be finite regresses in reality. At the base of each such regress, there must be an uncaused cause; there is no other logical explanation.

To be uncaused means to be beyond time (there is no 'before' for a timeless thing - it has no cause).

There are quite a few ways to show that time must have a start (eg do you believe a greater than finite number of days has elapsed?) and if that is true, then logic points to the reality of something atemporal.

I’m aware of the argument but I do not see how it makes the case that infinite regresses are impossible. A first element presupposes finitude, so why would we apply it to an infinite regress? I agree that a finite regress would require a first element, but disagree that an infinite regress does.

That's laughable to call a presumption of innocence a "precious human right, considering your support for President who so frequently accuses people of crimes with little or no basis.

The presumption of innocence is a legal standard in a criminal trial. It's an appropriate standard for that, because of the consequences of conviction. That doesn't mean it's a good, general epistemic standard. Imagine being on the jury of an alleged child molester. You decide the evidence did not rise to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level, and because of your decision he's acquitted. Would you consider hiring this person to babysit your children? Would you even want that person living nearby? If not, what became of your presumption of innocence?

We are within our epistemic rights to judge people on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence if we've made an effort to understand all the available facts.

Likewise, considering your disdain for the president, I find it surprising you adopt his thinking.

It is a good standard because one cannot correctly judge if another is guilty until it is proven. Assuming innocence could be wrong, of course, but it is at least just. Assuming guilt is unjust.

Thanks for the explanation.

So then to what do we owe the reality of the first element, a first tuner, if not an anterior one? Sure a finite regress all elements owe their reality to the first element, but I cannot see how that is true of an infinite one.

Why would an infinite causal regress require a first element for it to exist?

Regarding mutilation it’s a tough question. The word has very negative connotations, and applying it to surgical modifications might cast certain aspersions on transgender individuals and their choices, which in my opinion should be accommodated. But then again, to the extent that one wants to disfigure and modify his body through surgical means so as to appear a certain way, mutilation is an apt term. It can apply to all types of body modifications such cosmetic surgery, tattoos and piercings, so you wouldn’t necessarily be in bad company.

Is it necessary for uncaused causes to be possible for libertarian free will to be possible?
Can anyone here present a theory of causation that allows for libertarian free will?

I think actions must be self-caused in order to allow free will. This is where the debate around free will gets murky for me, because it always leads me to think the notion of free will is a 1-to-1 ratio with the body, and it becomes more a problem of identity. if it isn’t me causing my heart to beat, then what is causing my heart to beat? In the sense that my body—me—is regulating every process therein, from the heart beat to the secretion of hormones, it could be said I am controlling, “willing”, each and every action I perform.

You’d have to eschew the presumption of innocence, a precious human right, and adopt the presumption of guilt, a mark of tyranny, for any of that to be the case. There are reasonable doubts in every one of those matters.

Actually it is a truth that many white men are pseudo-Christian Tump supporters who own AR-15s. Most people living in the US know this.

Likewise, there certainly were noble tribes. The tribe that greeted Christopher Columbus welcomed him and his crew only to be later slaughtered or enslaved by Columbus.

First it’s “all white men” are such and such, then it’s “many”. This is the kind of logic required to sell nonsense.

The best you could say is that that particular tribe was hospitable or welcoming, virtues that are not limited to any one religion.

That’s like saying all white men are pseudo-Christian Trump supporters who own AR-15s is a truth.

Yes, the noble savage is stupid for the same reason.

Yawn

The noble (Christian?) savage is a myth.

I live near a tribe that once attacked neighboring tribes so as to make slaves of their women and children.

You know my answer, Tim. No, he is not a murderer. No, he is not a criminal.