Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Yet you wonder why some people are the way they are? Ever think that some people were reasonably or highly generous, only to have it thrown back in their face anyway because of whatever faults they may have? Ever feel yourself like you're not getting what you want out of something, so you stop caring as much or quit altogether? Why bother being generous if all you're going to get is hatred thrown at you for doing so, when all you may want is a little respect? Why bother acting the way people expect you to if you're never going to please them anyway? Why not just do whatever is best for you in that case?

Maybe Epstein did it out of guilt. Would that make it better? Knowing the good cause that money has helped, would you rather that money not have been accepted and let those who could have had better, suffer instead? Should the British have given back NA to the natives, or is the situation better off the way it is now? What saints we all are...

If you are giving to charity because you want respect, you aren't being altruistic, you are being selfish. You are essentially paying for an advertisement about how good of a person you are. The motivation behind giving to charity for an altruistic individual is the knowledge you are helping others. These argument that you are putting forward are simply reinforcing the arguments I was making by listing several selfish reasons that one could use to donate to charity.

KLAMarine said:

Being a skeptic means I have to split hairs.

You are not being a skeptic through this conversation. One of the key attributes of a skeptic is thinking and making well reasoned conclusions using the evidence that has been presented. Your entire argument rests upon the insistence that you do not believe you should be able to use your mind to make any conclusions that aren't laid out for you like a children's book.

That isn't being a skeptic, that is called being willfully ignorant.

If denying yourself the use of your mind is what it takes in order for you to justify Trump's words, I think that says all that needs to be said.

"using the evidence that has been presented"

>What evidence has been presented?

Puppyroach said:
KLAMarine said:

"I guess, for you, self-serving won't be proven until you have Trump's diary in your hands with the words "I am self-serving" written on every other page..."

>Something like that. I can't prove Trump gives to charity because he just wants the good PR.

I can't read minds.

"Seriously? You call yourself a skeptic and need him to use the word "race" in order to call him a racist?"

>No, I need him to use someone's race as a means to insult them. Telling someone to go back to some country, fix its problems, and then return does not qualify.

"If you sat in a jury, you wouldn´t be able to convict a burglar of a crime unless the burglar specifically says that he/she committed a burglary?"

>A burglar can be found in possession of stolen property or caught in the act. Someone saying something without making any reference to race means they said something while never making any reference to race. As a skeptic, I need it to be there explicitly.

Being a skeptic means I have to split hairs.

He was using his perception of their race (which doesn't have a clear definition) to assume they had another country other then the US and that they should leave "his" country and go to "their" country. He is not only assuming they have a different origin than him, he is also putting his own origin above theirs since he thinks they should leave "his" country. This is textbook racism where you divide people and assume different value to them.

"He was using his perception of their race"

>How do you know this? What if he was using their names?

"to assume they had another country other then the US and that they should leave "his" country and go to "their" country. He is not only assuming they have a different origin than him, he is also putting his own origin above theirs since he thinks they should leave "his" country."

>And he was also asking them to return at some point. "Then come back and show us how it is done."



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:

"using the evidence that has been presented"

>What evidence has been presented?

In this particular instance, I am speaking about Trump's words and the history and context behind them, however this discussion is about your worldview more than any one example.

You refuse to use your brain to interpret the information before you beyond face value. As such, you are utterly incapable of making reasoned judgements unless someone directly states something as would be seen in a children's book. Unless someone is rubbing their hands together, cackling and yelling "I am evil", you will refuse to make any negative judgements. This is called ignorance.

In a court of law, a jury is assigned the task of fact finder. They are to receive the information that is presented and make a reasoned decision stemming from that information. More often than not, the jury is not presented a confession from the defendant, or video evidence showing clearly that they are the criminal. They are presented with pieces of evidence, often circumstantial, which are used to construct a conclusion. Without the fundamental principle of reasoned inference, all ability to draw conclusions would crumble to nothingness. It is not irrational or overzealous to draw conclusions from available information despite the absence of a cartoonish caricature, it is foundational to logic itself.

As stated earlier, if going to these lengths to utterly abandon logic is what is required to justify Trump's words and actions, that is perhaps the greatest condemnation of all.



sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

"using the evidence that has been presented"

>What evidence has been presented?

In this particular instance, I am speaking about Trump's words and the history and context behind them, however this discussion is about your worldview more than any one example.

You refuse to use your brain to interpret the information before you beyond face value. As such, you are utterly incapable of making reasoned judgements unless someone directly states something as would be seen in a children's book. Unless someone is rubbing their hands together, cackling and yelling "I am evil", you will refuse to make any negative judgements. This is called ignorance.

In a court of law, a jury is assigned the task of fact finder. They are to receive the information that is presented and make a reasoned decision stemming from that information. More often than not, the jury is not presented a confession from the defendant, or video evidence showing clearly that they are the criminal. They are presented with pieces of evidence, often circumstantial, which are used to construct a conclusion. Without the fundamental principle of reasoned inference, all ability to draw conclusions would crumble to nothingness. It is not irrational or overzealous to draw conclusions from available information despite the absence of a cartoonish caricature, it is foundational to logic itself.

As stated earlier, if going to these lengths to utterly abandon logic is what is required to justify Trump's words and actions, that is perhaps the greatest condemnation of all.

Call me a juror who is not convinced by the current, scant amounts of evidence presented to him.



KLAMarine said:

Call me a juror who is not convinced by the current, scant amounts of evidence presented to him.

Biggerboat: I guess, for you, self-serving won't be proven until you have Trump's diary in your hands with the words "I am self-serving" written on every other page...

You: Something like that [...] I can't read minds

I'll be sure to tell my lawyer to grab you for jury duty if I ever find myself in such dire straights.



Retired SC Justice John Paul Stevens died today at age 99. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/us/john-paul-stevens-dead.html



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

Call me a juror who is not convinced by the current, scant amounts of evidence presented to him.

Biggerboat: I guess, for you, self-serving won't be proven until you have Trump's diary in your hands with the words "I am self-serving" written on every other page...

You: Something like that [...] I can't read minds

I'll be sure to tell my lawyer to grab you for jury duty if I ever find myself in such dire straights.

Focus more on building a solid case.

jason1637 said:
Retired SC Justice John Paul Stevens died today at age 99. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/us/john-paul-stevens-dead.html

That's a long life! Rest in Peace.



EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

1). Charity.

2). Ego.

1). The definition of charity says nothing about the giver.

2). Why should anyone give to charity? Because in one way or another it stokes their ego. It just depends whether or not that form of ego is seen as acceptable to some people. Other people couldn't care less where the money comes from, within reason.

1). You don't understand what an implication is, do you?  It's implied.  If you are giving but only doing so out of motivation that you will benefit, that's not now, ever has been, nor ever will be accepted as a defining facet of charity. The altruistic nature of giving for the sake of giving is implied in the concept of charity.  Why the hell I just had to explain that I'll never understand.

2). Did you just suggest that people only give to charity because it strokes their ego? Holy hell. 

EricHiggin said:

Ever wonder if Trump is thinking he'll respect the National Parks Services when people stop going against his mission statement?

He'll respect the National Parks service when people accept and abide by his mission statement?

So....our National Parks (among other things) are being held hostage by Trump's ego? I'm glad you've finally seen the truth.

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 16 July 2019

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

If you are giving to charity because you want respect, you aren't being altruistic, you are being selfish. You are essentially paying for an advertisement about how good of a person you are. The motivation behind giving to charity for an altruistic individual is the knowledge you are helping others. These argument that you are putting forward are simply reinforcing the arguments I was making by listing several selfish reasons that one could use to donate to charity.

You are not being a skeptic through this conversation. One of the key attributes of a skeptic is thinking and making well reasoned conclusions using the evidence that has been presented. Your entire argument rests upon the insistence that you do not believe you should be able to use your mind to make any conclusions that aren't laid out for you like a children's book.

That isn't being a skeptic, that is called being willfully ignorant.

If denying yourself the use of your mind is what it takes in order for you to justify Trump's words, I think that says all that needs to be said.

"using the evidence that has been presented"

>What evidence has been presented?

Puppyroach said:

He was using his perception of their race (which doesn't have a clear definition) to assume they had another country other then the US and that they should leave "his" country and go to "their" country. He is not only assuming they have a different origin than him, he is also putting his own origin above theirs since he thinks they should leave "his" country. This is textbook racism where you divide people and assume different value to them.

"He was using his perception of their race"

>How do you know this? What if he was using their names?

"to assume they had another country other then the US and that they should leave "his" country and go to "their" country. He is not only assuming they have a different origin than him, he is also putting his own origin above theirs since he thinks they should leave "his" country."

>And he was also asking them to return at some point. "Then come back and show us how it is done."

Why does it matter whether or not he used their name? It is equally bad to use a person´s name as a measurement of whether or not the person is an equal citizens to you or not.

Exactly, he dictates whether or not they should be in the US, therefore he is putting himself as the arbiter of who can stay, leave and return. He doesn´t understand that, as citizens, everyone is equal regardless of ethnicity, name, political affiliation and so on. The president, even a racist one, is not elevated in any way as a citizen.

Let´s look at some of his histories:

- He settled a case in the '70s where he was sued for discrimination against black Americans in a housing case.

- The Central Park 5 case where he insisted on the guilt of the black Americans, along with on Hispanic, even after a confession and conviction of a serial rapist.

- He pushed the agenda that Obama wasn´t legitimate as president based on the false assumption that he wasn´t born in the US. He has never made that assumption against a white president (not even Hillary which he loathes as a person).

- He accused the judge with a hispanic heritage of bias against him because Trump had been so hard on Mexico.

- He made this comment on immigrants from Mexico: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

- He called Warren "Pocahontas" (a racist slur traditionally used against native-Americans) when she claimed (right or wrong) native-American heritage.

These are just some examples of his history with ethnicities and what he seem to view as different races (race is a difficult term to use since it has no clear definition but it is used primarily to address different ethnicities or people of a different color).



sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

What you think about it is your own opinion, but it is what it is. Did I pique your curiosity?

Well that's likely the point of the statement being so vague now isn't it? It's whatever he wants it to be as long as he can justify it at that point in time. Not much different than orange man bad. Pretty simple statement but it seems to get the job done.

You saying this is almost as strong of a condemnation of that slogan as I would have made, so I have nothing further to add.

These are strange conversations indeed, when you seem to repeatedly agree with me under the facade of argument.

Well it's not saying much based on what was said. I wouldn't call that strong condemnation but that's just me. I don't live by the rule that everything not said as you might assume, is necessarily proof of something.

Maybe because they're conversations in general, with arguments taking place at times. Going to the beach on a sunny day isn't going to turn out like you thought it would if it's winter and not summer.

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

1). The definition of charity says nothing about the giver.

2). Why should anyone give to charity? Because in one way or another it stokes their ego. It just depends whether or not that form of ego is seen as acceptable to some people. Other people couldn't care less where the money comes from, within reason.

1). You don't understand what an implication is, do you?  It's implied.  If you are giving but only doing so out of motivation that you will benefit, that's not now, ever has been, nor ever will be accepted as a defining facet of charity. The altruistic nature of giving for the sake of giving is implied in the concept of charity.  Why the hell I just had to explain that I'll never understand.

2). Did you just suggest that people only give to charity because it strokes their ego? Holy hell. 

EricHiggin said:

Ever wonder if Trump is thinking he'll respect the National Parks Services when people stop going against his mission statement?

He'll respect the National Parks service when people accept and abide by his mission statement?

So....our National Parks (among other things) are being held hostage by Trump's ego? I'm glad you've finally seen the truth.

Ego - A persons sense of self esteem or self importance. 

How many people do you think feel terrible about giving to charity? How many think it's wrong and do it anyway? Even if you give to charity because it feels good since you're doing a good thing, and don't ask for 'anything' in return, you're still receiving an ego boost indirectly, just in a manner that some find more acceptable. The fact is it doesn't matter why you're doing it, charity is charity. It's not like the money produces less good for the cause it supports if it comes from someone who wants the most minuscule direct physical gesture.

The NPS was a reply to what was said below in bold. As I initially stated, it's never enough. There is always another reason to neglect any good that may have been done because of some wrongdoing. How much wrongdoing is too much? A lot, a little, any at all? How do you assign a value to each?

sundin13 said:

As for whether it is worth respect, I'll respect Trump for donating to the National Park Services when he stops actively going against the mission statement of the National Park Services in every other move that he makes. I'm not going to praise someone for taking one tiny step forward when the rest of the year they have been sprinting backwards at full speed...

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 17 July 2019

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Puppyroach said:
KLAMarine said:

"using the evidence that has been presented"

>What evidence has been presented?

"He was using his perception of their race"

>How do you know this? What if he was using their names?

"to assume they had another country other then the US and that they should leave "his" country and go to "their" country. He is not only assuming they have a different origin than him, he is also putting his own origin above theirs since he thinks they should leave "his" country."

>And he was also asking them to return at some point. "Then come back and show us how it is done."

Why does it matter whether or not he used their name? It is equally bad to use a person´s name as a measurement of whether or not the person is an equal citizens to you or not.

Exactly, he dictates whether or not they should be in the US, therefore he is putting himself as the arbiter of who can stay, leave and return. He doesn´t understand that, as citizens, everyone is equal regardless of ethnicity, name, political affiliation and so on. The president, even a racist one, is not elevated in any way as a citizen.

Let´s look at some of his histories:

- He settled a case in the '70s where he was sued for discrimination against black Americans in a housing case.

- The Central Park 5 case where he insisted on the guilt of the black Americans, along with on Hispanic, even after a confession and conviction of a serial rapist.

- He pushed the agenda that Obama wasn´t legitimate as president based on the false assumption that he wasn´t born in the US. He has never made that assumption against a white president (not even Hillary which he loathes as a person).

- He accused the judge with a hispanic heritage of bias against him because Trump had been so hard on Mexico.

- He made this comment on immigrants from Mexico: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

- He called Warren "Pocahontas" (a racist slur traditionally used against native-Americans) when she claimed (right or wrong) native-American heritage.

These are just some examples of his history with ethnicities and what he seem to view as different races (race is a difficult term to use since it has no clear definition but it is used primarily to address different ethnicities or people of a different color).

"Why does it matter whether or not he used their name?"

>Because the accusation is that he used the race of the supposed four congresswomen (which he never named in his tweets btw) to determined they didn't come from the US. I see Tlaib and I see Ilhan and I think "hmm, I wonder if they were born here in the states?"

Nothing racist about it, it's simple logic.

"It is equally bad to use a person´s name as a measurement of whether or not the person is an equal citizens to you or not."

>I don't recall Trump making any such measurement in his tweets. He said "go back, fix those problems, then return to the US."