Trump

[Kevin Solway]

There are innumerable in plain sight facts regarding Trump's behaviour

Things which are "in sight" can be perceived differently depending on where you view them from. When a magician is performing illusions on stage, the audience see magic happening in sight, but from the magician's perspective there is no magic happening.

So the claim that things are real because they are "in sight", or to use the Patreon CEO's phrase "manifestly observable", is a grossly fallacious argument.

It also means that any discussion with you on any such empirical matter is meaningless. Goodbye, Kevin.

You're not making a rational argument. I gave strong reasons as to why your "in plain sight" argument was fallacious, and you have made no response.

[Kevin Solway]

Trump is a raging narcissist with no comprehension of the nature of reality.

Casting aspersions about people isn't going to get you anywhere.

So, you'll be deleting 'Poison for the Heart' sometime soon? As a matter of logical consistency?

As I recall, 'Poison for the Heart" doesn't call any individuals "unconscious" or "idiots" or "irredeemable basket of deplorables" just because they have a different political view.

A few years ago, Hilary Clinton called her opponents "A basket of deplorables" who were "irredeemable". Look where it got her.

It got her the popular vote by a factor of around 3 million votes. Do you want to debate 'democracy'?

My point was that if you insult and demonize people then there will be price to pay. Many people who would normally have supported the democrats decided to support Trump, because of Clinton's actions. And they will probably never support the democrats ever again.

I have been employing rational arguments in every single one of my posts.

Kevin: Definitely not.

Prove your authority.

As I said previously, that which is asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence. I'm not claiming "authority".

David: For me, the most corrupt aspect of Trump’s character is not his rampant criminality, which is obvious for all to see.

Kevin: If you have evidence of criminality then you need to report it. Mueller couldn't find any criminality, after a 30 million US dollar investigation, and nor can you.

Bullshit. Mueller did not indict on matters of OoJ on DoJ advice that he could not. Your willingness to ignore the meaning of his references . . .

Regarding the "meaning of his references" . . . This is just interpretation on your part. It's not "fact". Nowhere does Mueller say that Trump committed a crime, or anything even close to it.

Oh, and his 'technical' status as a 'criminal' is a tedious red-herring you keep raising so as to avoid reality.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that score, since I think that continually calling a person a "criminal" is a very serious charge, especially when no proof is provided to prove that the charge is true. It's like calling a person a "witch" and then when asked to provide proof for this claim, you answer "Because they look like one", or "Because they're made of wood".

[Avolith]

My point was that if you insult and demonize people then there will be price to pay. Many people who would normally have supported the democrats decided to support Trump, because of Clinton's actions. And they will probably never support the democrats ever again.

I'd be interested to hear why you think ex-democrat-voters wouldn't go back to voting democrats in the future, say if they put forward a different leader. I'd guess that negative sentiments are more likely to be attached directly to Hillary rather than the whole democratic party, but there might be other factors. Like, the lack of convincing leaders in the democratic party.

[jupiviv]

David has declared that buddha's experience passion and desire, an assertion that goes against the literal meaning of nirvana which is "blowing out" or "quenching". Perhaps Dan and/or Kevin (and others) believe the same.

I would say that enlightenment involves a quenching of the emotions or passions.

But it doesn't involve quenching emotions by avoiding or ignoring the things that induce them in favour of those that do not. For example, avoiding complex things that cause suffering if one thinks about them, in favour of simple things that do not.

A few years ago, Hilary Clinton called her opponents "A basket of deplorables" who were "irredeemable". Look where it got her.

The 'reasoning' behind this statement: Hillary is irrationally hateful because she insulted people. Trump didn't, so he is at least less irrationally hateful than Hillary. Rationality won, and that is good because I value rationality.

Trump has openly insulted, mocked and lied about other people throughout his presidency. Hillary did so far less frequently during her career, probably because she is more intelligent and competent than Trump. The "deplorables" comment stands out for this reason. None of this is relevant to the question, which of the two is more rational? Yet even this simple argument is too painfully complicated for you to engage with.

Things which are "in sight" can be perceived differently depending on where you view them from.

This is just Position B again - everyone is deluded so nothing anyone says can be trusted. Except you evidently trust at least some things that some people are saying, like right-wing alternative media, about things you agree with. So you're contradicting your own positions.

Trump... does provide a temporary hindrance to the insanity of the SJWs, feminists, and Marxists.

This is just wanton slander. What is the insanity of the groups you mentioned? How is Trump hindering that and why is that good?

If there are, say, two main damning facts about Trump, then it should only take two sentences to say what they are.

There is no logical reason whatsoever to require a fact to be contained within 1 sentence.

Corruption: Trump is, in full view, profiting . . .

Is this really one of the main "facts" against Trump that you are presenting?

How many hundreds of millions of dollars did the Clintons make when they were public servants?

This is just a strawman.

Were you complaining about corruption at that time?

The Clintons' political career started in the 90s. Mainstream media started before that. If lack of previous complaints counts as a valid argument against current complaints, everything you've said about the Clintons and the media is wrong. Which it mostly is anyway, but whatever.

Did Mueller say that Trump obstructed justice? Yes or no.

He said it wasn't his job to say that. However, he did cite already *known* evidence of obstruction. Namely, Trump's firing of Comey, which establishes *intent* to obstruct, which qualifies as obstruction under US law.

As I recall, 'Poison for the Heart" doesn't call any individuals "unconscious" or "idiots" or "irredeemable basket of deplorables" just because they have a different political view.

lol... you said virtually all human beings are deluded and unconscious in that book.

Bullshit. Mueller did not indict on matters of OoJ on DoJ advice that he could not. Your willingness to ignore the meaning of his references . . .

This is just interpretation on your part. It's not "fact".

But this is also interpretation on your part, namely of what Dan meant by "meaning". Meaning is often factually accurate, or crucial to the understanding of statements of fact.

I think that continually calling a person a "criminal" is a very serious charge, especially when no proof is provided to prove that the charge is true.

Some monks and priests proudly claim not to ask their followers for money: they do however expect it - which is even worse than asking!

They are criminals, cheating innocent people out of their hard-earned money on the pretext that it is for a good cause.

A teacher may explain the magnificent biology of life, yet his heart is full of evil superstitions. Deep within he believes in a "soul", which magically springs into existence at conception, and equally mysteriously disappears at death. Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words, and the heart louder than the head. Thus a teacher's superstitions have more impact than his science. This week-day criminality at school is then supplemented on the week-end with the myths of "Sunday school".

Hence, your life's work is deeply irrational according to your own putative standard of rational and decent behaviour.

[Kevin Solway]

A few years ago, Hilary Clinton called her opponents "A basket of deplorables" who were "irredeemable". Look where it got her.

The 'reasoning' behind this statement: Hillary is irrationally hateful because she insulted people. Trump didn't, so he is at least less irrationally hateful than Hillary. Rationality won, and that is good because I value rationality.

No, you're reading too much into it.

Jonathon Pie today released a video which nicely makes my point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nIhL4v6bY&t=0s

Trump has openly insulted, mocked and lied about other people throughout his presidency.

If Trump has done this to millions of people, just because they have different political views to himself, then he is very unwise to do so. I don't think he's done that, but I could be wrong.

None of this is relevant to the question, which of the two is more rational?

I don't know which of the two is more rational. They both seem pretty bad to me.

Things which are "in sight" can be perceived differently depending on where you view them from.

This is just Position B again - everyone is deluded so nothing anyone says can be trusted.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I even gave an illustration to clarify my position. In the case of the magic show, the person in the audience might think they are seeing real magic, but the magician, being in possession of more of the facts, knows that it is not real. The more facts a person is in possession of, the more trustworthy their position may be. May be. There's no guarantee.

I am interested in the facts, rather than in what people perceive.

Except you evidently trust at least some things that some people are saying, like right-wing alternative media

I'll only believe the media if I can verify that what they are saying is true.

Trump... does provide a temporary hindrance to the insanity of the SJWs, feminists, and Marxists.

This is just wanton slander. What is the insanity of the groups you mentioned? How is Trump hindering that and why is that good?

That's too big a topic to tackle here.

In short, I don't believe in equality. All people are different. Not all people or cultures are of equal value.

Also, I don't think the "groups" are insane, but that the members of those groups, generally, have a lot of very irrational thoughts.

Did Mueller say that Trump obstructed justice? Yes or no.

He said it wasn't his job to say that. However, he did cite already *known* evidence of obstruction. Namely, Trump's firing of Comey, which establishes *intent* to obstruct, which qualifies as obstruction under US law.

That is highly debatable. Trump is Comey's boss and he can sack him any time he wants. If he thinks that Comey is corrupt, and is working to undermine the democratically elected government, then he can sack him. That's not obstruction, but is what we would expect of a competent president.

lol... you said virtually all human beings are deluded and unconscious in that book.

That's right. I didn't say that people are deluded and unconscious just because they have a different political view than myself.

I think that continually calling a person a "criminal" is a very serious charge, especially when no proof is provided to prove that the charge is true.

Some monks and priests proudly claim not to ask their followers for money: they do however expect it - which is even worse than asking!

They are criminals, cheating innocent people out of their hard-earned money on the pretext that it is for a good cause.

That's right. I'm not continually calling a particular person a criminal. I made a general statement about "some monks and priests" and then I made it very clear in what context I was using the word "criminal". This is different to what David is doing. He is repeatedly accusing a particular person by name, and he's not being clear what he means by "criminal", and not providing any proof to back up his assertions. So I think he is engaging in smearing.

[Pam Seeback]

Kevin Solway wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:10 am

Pam Seeback wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 5:14 pm
David has declared that buddha's experience passion and desire, an assertion that goes against the literal meaning of nirvana which is "blowing out" or "quenching". Perhaps Dan and/or Kevin (and others) believe the same.

I would say that enlightenment involves a quenching of the emotions or passions.

jupiviv wrote: But it doesn't involve quenching emotions by avoiding or ignoring the things that induce them in favour of those that do not. For example, avoiding complex things that cause suffering if one thinks about them, in favour of simple things that do not.

The myriad of categories that cause emotional (passionate) attachments are indeed complex which is why it is difficult to see the simplicity of the attachment principle at the root of the suffering emotional attachments cause. Once the simple root cause is discovered, however, one has been given the way to work through the delusion of entanglement: keep the simple truth of suffering's cause forefront in the mind and allow this focus to act as the catalyst for quenching.

I posit that facing the delusion of having become entangled in the finite things of Self is to face the proverbial philosophical identity crisis, i.e., without my (idealistic) passions, what will be left of me, i.e., I can't let go, I won't let go because I fear if I do, I will go. St. John of the Cross called this darkness of passion The Dark Night of the Spirit in contrast with its predecessor, The Dark Night of the Soul wherein loving passion to be united with God is the self's reason d'etre.

In religious terms, as long as passion is being experienced, the soul remains seeking God and the transforming power of the dark night of Spirit remains unrealized. In modern, atheistic terms, as long as passion is being experienced, the self remains seeking for objective meaning and the transforming power of the dark night of nihilism remains unrealized.

[jupiviv]

A few years ago, Hilary Clinton called her opponents "A basket of deplorables" who were "irredeemable". Look where it got her.

The 'reasoning' behind this statement: Hillary is irrationally hateful because she insulted people. Trump didn't, so he is at least less irrationally hateful than Hillary. Rationality won, and that is good because I value rationality.

No, you're reading too much into it.

How should I read it then? It's obvious that you're applying a double standard of "rationality" and even morality to Trump and Hillary, indeed to everyone who criticises you. E.g. the relevance of the US legal definition of "criminality" as evidence of irrational/immoral behaviour varies dramatically between your claims about these two individuals.

Trump has openly insulted, mocked and lied about other people throughout his presidency.

If Trump has done this to millions of people, just because they have different political views to himself, then he is very unwise to do so. I don't think he's done that, but I could be wrong.

I didn't say millions of people, nor have you mentioned anything about the seriousness of insult-irrationality being quantitatively determined. Still, Trump has indeed said very bigoted and racist things about millions of immigrants, without apologising afterward. That is not only irrational but *dangerous* coming from a POTUS.

Compared to that, Hillary's statement is anodyne. She said half of Trumpists were deplorable because of racist/sexist views and the other half wanted positive change, and then apologised for saying "half". Again, double standard.

None of this is relevant to the question, which of the two is more rational?

I don't know which of the two is more rational. They both seem pretty bad to me.

I think so too. Our disagreement is about the *context* of the equal badness.

Things which are "in sight" can be perceived differently depending on where you view them from.

This is just Position B again - everyone is deluded so nothing anyone says can be trusted.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I even gave an illustration to clarify my position. In the case of the magic show, the person in the audience might think they are seeing real magic, but the magician, being in possession of more of the facts, knows that it is not real. The more facts a person is in possession of, the more trustworthy their position may be. May be. There's no guarantee.

It's a truism because the fact that empirical knowledge is uncertain has nothing to do with specific empirical claims and their evaluation. It cannot be used to justify your claim that, for example, the evidence of Trump's impeachment has been fabricated or is dependent upon statements made by untrustworthy witnesses; or place the veracity of your statements about the media above or on par with contrary statements based on observable reality.

Except you evidently trust at least some things that some people are saying, like right-wing alternative media

I'll only believe the media if I can verify that what they are saying is true.

Then why do you believe the right-wing media when they say things which align with your (unverified) opinions?

Trump... does provide a temporary hindrance to the insanity of the SJWs, feminists, and Marxists.

This is just wanton slander. What is the insanity of the groups you mentioned? How is Trump hindering that and why is that good?

That's too big a topic to tackle here.

In short, I don't believe in equality. All people are different. Not all people or cultures are of equal value.

None of those groups - except maybe SJWs, which has no fixed definition - say all cultures and people are of equal value.

Did Mueller say that Trump obstructed justice? Yes or no.

He said it wasn't his job to say that. However, he did cite already *known* evidence of obstruction. Namely, Trump's firing of Comey, which establishes *intent* to obstruct, which qualifies as obstruction under US law.

Trump is Comey's boss and he can sack him any time he wants.

Is this what you think is appropriate or what you think is appropriate under US law? If the latter, then you're wrong for reasons stated previously.

lol... you said virtually all human beings are deluded and unconscious in that book.

That's right. I didn't say that people are deluded and unconscious just because they have a different political view than myself.

If you can truthfully differentiate between yourself and the rest of humanity in terms of delusion, and without providing extensive evidence that removes all possible doubt as to your truthfulness in every possible individual instance, political views and their adherents can be truthfully differentiated from each other in the same way. You have no basis, according to your own past work, for claiming that the latter is inherently irrational.

Some monks and priests proudly claim not to ask their followers for money: they do however expect it - which is even worse than asking!

They are criminals, cheating innocent people out of their hard-earned money on the pretext that it is for a good cause.

That's right. I'm not continually calling a particular person a criminal. I made a general statement about "some monks and priests" and then I made it very clear in what context I was using the word "criminal". This is different to what David is doing. He is repeatedly accusing a particular person by name, and he's not being clear what he means by "criminal", and not providing any proof to back up his assertions. So I think he is engaging in smearing.

No you called *all* monks & priests who "do not ask for money" criminals, not merely *some*. You did not make it clear what the context of the criminality itself is, i.e. legal but immoral, illegal but moral etc. Only the reason for accusing them of it. David and Dan are doing the same thing when they accuse Trump of irrationality because of generally criminal behaviour. Their accusation need not hinge on the technical country-specific legality of each act of criminal behaviour referenced in order to be valid, according to the standard of validity you apply to yourself.

[jupiviv]

The only claim it debunks is that the bill itself inaugurated mass incarceration, which is not the same as having no role.

You've just changed the meaning of "being instrumental" into having a possible role or influence. That's how you win arguments these days?

Being instrumental can connote either an active or passive role. Also, neither I nor your article mentioned a *possible* role.

Throughout history, founders and/or primary benefactors of governments containing elements of democracy advocated or enacted measures against whatever they considered to be abuses of the form/s of democracy relevant to them.

In fact, that has been quite rare. The situation rarely comes up, not counting simple overthrowing.

I mean this is easily debunked just by looking beyond the post-WW2 situation in the West, and yet even there glaring exceptions abound.

But doing that would, in my view, be a deeply undemocratic move in itself because it decides not only for now but also for all people in the future how it's going to be.

Sure but this is your personal definition operating within your personal context viz. democratic systems become less democratic when enacting any kind of structural or procedural change whatsoever (including prevention of abuse). You have yet to explain *why* you think so.

You're arguing for *hypothetical* systems that lack any safeguards against potential abuse on principle; principles supposedly crucial to wisdom also. Well you have to make that case instead of pretending they already exist.

No, real systems. In my own country, a well known democracy of note, this is the very debate that has happened in recent years without resolution as of yet. Perhaps you should not talk about things you don't know that much about?

My dudeship has tragically soiled himself whilst attempting to use "words". Sad, but renewed efforts advisable.

Since invoking "broad pictures" appeals to a deeper sense or intuition

I mean linking "broad picture" to "intuition" is itself an appeal to your own personal intuition operating against conventional, accepted usage.

if a crime was committed, with a crime being defined by the criminal code of a country. Your argument leans on some imagined universal sense of lawfulness.

You made that up just now, nobody agreed to define crime in those specific terms, or restrict irrationality (the 'broad picture', or context) to them. Nor was the initial discussion premissed on such a definition.

That might be but for impeachment we might set the bar a bit higher, perhaps?

The impeachment charges appear to be sound, as are a few additional charges like obstruction (both Comey & recent) & emoluments.

[jupiviv]

Was David's response predominantly dismissive? Yes. Was it any kind of substantive refutation or confutation? No. Perhaps he thought that given your time here you'd have a better grasp of 'QSR' philosophy and method. Do you want to know how your observations are wide of the mark at almost every turn?

Your thrilling answer might lead to a slightly more fruitful discussion than this one so yes. But you should probably post it in the relevant thread.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You've just changed the meaning of "being instrumental" into having a possible role or influence.

Being instrumental can connote either an active or passive role. Also, neither I nor your article mentioned a *possible* role.

Cambridge meaning of instrumental in English: If someone or something is instrumental in a process, plan, or system, that person or thing is one of the most important influences in causing it to happen

So yes, the claim it debunks is that the bill somehow inaugurated mass incarceration, as the interviewee claimed, which is not the same as having "either an active or passive role", as you just made up somehow.

Throughout history, founders and/or primary benefactors of governments containing elements of democracy advocated or enacted measures against whatever they considered to be abuses of the form/s of democracy relevant to them.

In fact, that has been quite rare. The situation rarely comes up, not counting simple overthrowing.

I mean this is easily debunked [Secessio_plebis] just by looking beyond the post-WW2 situation in the West, and yet even there glaring exceptions abound.

What has civil unrest in all its forms to do with using or abusing democratic processes? The right to protest or strike does not equal the right to have riots or organize endless strikes. In the end in '68 another election was held and the result was a massive victory for conservative powers.

nobody agreed to define crime in those specific terms... Nor was the initial discussion premissed on such a definition.

Crimes are simply defined by criminal law. Not sure what you want to suggest here. Offense against your personal or absolute morality?

The impeachment charges appear to be sound, as are a few additional charges like obstruction (both Comey & recent) & emoluments.

There are some healthy doubts possible, for example by Jonathan Turley, law professor George Washington Uni and testified in Congress.

[Dan Rowden]

Was David's response predominantly dismissive? Yes. Was it any kind of substantive refutation or confutation? No. Perhaps he thought that given your time here you'd have a better grasp of 'QSR' philosophy and method. Do you want to know how your observations are wide of the mark at almost every turn?

Your thrilling answer might lead to a slightly more fruitful discussion than this one so yes. But you should probably post it in the relevant thread.

Agreed. I had that same thought. Might be a few days as I'll be 'incommunicado' for a bit.

[Dan Rowden]

I didn't say that people are deluded and unconscious just because [emphasis mine - DR]they have a different political view than myself.

That's correct, nor has anybody else in this thread.

[Kevin Solway]

No, you're reading too much into it.

How should I read it then?

Did you see my link to the Jonathon Pie video? I was saying that if you deeply insult people, by calling them "Nazis" or "irredeemably deplorable" or whatever, then they will naturally turn against you, probably for the long term.

Trump has indeed said very bigoted and racist things about millions of immigrants, without apologising afterward.

I don't think he has. What is your definition of "racist". He naturally won't apologize if he hasn't done anything wrong.

The media has misreported what he has said, reporting his words out of context.

Compared to that, Hillary's statement is anodyne. She said half of Trumpists were deplorable because of racist/sexist views and the other half wanted positive change, and then apologised for saying "half".

I think she obviously believes that "half", or at least 30% of Trump's supporters are "irredeemably deplorable". That's why she said it. I think she was apologizing to try and reduce the damage to her election prospects.

I think she is deeply deluded about the nature of Trump supporters.

I'll only believe the media if I can verify that what they are saying is true.

Then why do you believe the right-wing media when they say things which align with your (unverified) opinions?

You'll have to be more specific. If I already have an opinion, and have verified that it is true, then what the media says doesn't make any real difference.

None of those groups - except maybe SJWs, which has no fixed definition - say all cultures and people are of equal value.

I don't agree. Many feminists, for example, argue that women are equal to men, and are of equal value to men in all regards. They argue that women are equal at sport and at work, and that men and women are mentally and physically equal, and that men and women are equal at fighting, and also that women are superior.

Marxists tend to view that all people should be equally rewarded for their work, and that one person's work is not more valuable than some other person's work.

All of the groups I mention tend to think that all cultures are of equal value, except that their own culture is superior to all others, and that other cultures should be eliminated by force.

Their "equality" is a ruse. A lie.

Trump is Comey's boss and he can sack him any time he wants.

Is this what you think is appropriate or what you think is appropriate under US law?

If he thinks that Comey is trying to undermine the democratically elected government, and has good reason to think that, then it is appropriate
that he sacks Comey. That should be appropriate under US law.

You did not make it clear what the context of the criminality itself is

Well, I said that "They are criminals, cheating innocent people out of their hard-earned money on the pretext that it is for a good cause." Generally speaking, that's not against the law because it would be impossible to implement such a law. Virtually all advertising cheats people out of their money. So I think I made it clear that I was using an extended definition of "criminality".

My point was that continually accusing a particular individual, by name, of being a criminal, and not being clear of what you mean by "criminal", and not providing any proof of criminality, is bad. Society can't function under those circumstances. It is uncivilized.

[Kevin Solway]

The impeachment charges appear to be sound, as are a few additional charges like obstruction (both Comey & recent) & emoluments.

The problem I have with them is that they are all extremely weak, or possibly entirely without substance.

If we go by these standards, then from here on in, any president will be impeached for just about any reason whatsoever.

We can burn a witch because she has the nose of witch, because we attached that nose to her.

[David Quinn]

I think that continually calling a person a "criminal" is a very serious charge, especially when no proof is provided to prove that the charge is true.

Some monks and priests proudly claim not to ask their followers for money: they do however expect it - which is even worse than asking!

They are criminals, cheating innocent people out of their hard-earned money on the pretext that it is for a good cause.

That's right. I'm not continually calling a particular person a criminal. I made a general statement about "some monks and priests" and then I made it very clear in what context I was using the word "criminal". This is different to what David is doing. He is repeatedly accusing a particular person by name, and he's not being clear what he means by "criminal", and not providing any proof to back up his assertions. So I think he is engaging in smearing.

Ironically, this is precisely one of the crimes that Trump has already been found to have committed:

Trump Ordered to Pay $2 Million to Charities for Misuse of Foundation

A state judge ordered President Trump to pay $2 million in damages to nonprofit groups on Thursday after the president admitted misusing money raised by the Donald J. Trump Foundation to promote his presidential bid, pay off business debts and purchase a portrait of himself for one of his hotels.

"They are criminals, cheating innocent people out of their hard-earned money on the pretext that it is for a good cause."

[David Quinn]

I don't see anything interesting about her. I think she reads from a script and that she has been created by the media.

As I say, these remarks perfectly encapsulate the deep rot that has eaten into your soul. There is:

- Unbridled contempt for passion and youthful idealism.

If you think that saying "I don't see anything interesting about her" is the same as "unbridled contempt" then I think you have completely lost the plot.

It’s the whole of your quoted remark which tells the story, not just the bit you isolated.

murdering and obliterating a person like Greta Thunberg

If you think that saying that I don't see anything interesting about her is the same as "murdering and obliterating" her then I think you have lost the plot.

Again, it’s the whole of your quoted remark which tells the story, not just the bit you isolated. The full quote was:

• "I don't see anything interesting about her. I think she reads from a script and that she has been created by the media."

Your words here are clear and unmistakable. Greta Thunberg is a mindless puppet. A piece of media froth like Kim Kardashian. She is vacuous. She is nothing. With these words, her mind, her life, and her character are completely and utterly obliterated.

But that's not the end of the matter. Not content with blowing her to smithereens, you now have to turn your sights onto someone else. Apparently, I need to be blown away as well. And why? For having the temerity to hold your own words to account. So I too must be obliterated.

And then, just to pile on the farce and advance the thing to a whole new level of buffoonery, you proceed to complain elsewhere on this thread - again and again and again - about how awful it is that people engage in personal attacks, insults and smears......

numerous alt-right lynch mobs

As far as I know the alt-right hasn't been lynching anyone. I don't know where you are getting your news from.

Breitbart, Fox News, Sky After Dark, The Australian, The Telegraph, etc, etc, The usual suspects.

With Thunberg, words like “mentally-ill child”, “spoiled brat”, “mindless puppet”, “crisis actor”, etc, seem to pop up a lot. And a lot of talk about George Soros, for some reason. It's all very homogeneous. There is very little dissent. Just thousands and thousands of people piling into her.

But at least, when they do this, they are taking a break from the usual business of collectively abusing, harassing and issuing death threats against those who dare to criticize the Supreme Gropenfuhrer, a.k.a. the Chosen One. So that's something, I suppose.

Jonathon Pie today released a video which nicely makes my point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nIhL4v6bY&t=0s

He articulates a deep principle here, one that we all know to be true. The left are responsible for everything. And the right can remain as children and continue to play the victim card to their hearts' content.

[David Quinn]

If you think that saying that I don't see anything interesting about her [Greta Thunberg] is the same as "murdering and obliterating" her then I think you have lost the plot.

There is another interesting aspect to all of this and it relates to something that Dan said a few days ago:

I don't think it's possible to reasonably discuss these matters with Kevin. The radical epistemic scepticism he's imposing on those with a differing view makes it next to impossible. He's clearly not invoking it in any sense of philosophic integrity because he's not imposing it either upon himself or, it seems, anyone who sees things as he does.

Consistently applying that paradigm to matters empirical would leave us unable to make any judgments whatever. We could never identify any form of corruption and no person could ever be indicted for any crime at any time. This is because at any stage in such deliberations that paradigm could be invoked.

And also to something I said a couple of week ago:

I am starting to sense a pattern in the way that you deal with things like authorities, scientists, news articles, other people’s views, and empirical evidence in general, a pattern that is designed to reinforce a narrative that has, since the gamergate affair, hijacked your mind.

This is nicely illustrated by the particular response you gave here regarding Greta Thunberg. To repeat, your full quote was:

• I don't see anything interesting about her. I think she reads from a script and that she has been created by the media.

But in responding to my accusation that you were “murdering and obliterating” Greta Thunberg, you decided to truncate your original quote to:

• If you think that saying that I don't see anything interesting about her is the same as "murdering and obliterating" her then I think you have lost the plot.

So what exactly happened here? You severed the evidence into pieces, and then you grabbed one of these pieces and took it out of context (thereby changing its significance and meaning) and tried to pass it off as the whole evidence.

This is deeply dishonest behaviour and indicative of the way in which you seem to approach all empirical matters nowadays.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, I just spent an hour and a half replying to Diebert only to have the post vanish into the internet ether, but so as to not have wasted my time entirely - for those who like a formal legal perspective on things:

https://www.justsecurity.org/67738/fede ... d-j-trump/

[David Quinn]

Dan? DAAANNNN!!!!1! Yeah, um, so David has informed us recently that:

So, like, David treats my criticism of him exactly as Kevin treats our criticism of him (either divorcing arguments from any recognisable context or dumb contrariness for its own sake) albeit using many, many more words. Do you think that is just normal sagely behaviour befitting the ideal of absolute commitment to wisdom? Would you tolerate it if it were directed at you?

These issues have already been litigated. We had a substantive discussion about them on that other thread. I'm sorry if it didn't work out the way you wanted.

Would you consider the following litigious excerpt from the substantive discussion in question...

Like all things, consciousness may increase or decrease depending on various factors. But there is no special absolute truth/s that can transform a consciousness of the sort described above into a deeper, more robust form. Which is to say, one that doesn't flinch before pain, loss and suffering and can therefore retain its honesty even when personal interests or attachments are challenged in a very immediate and material sense. Neither can the transition towards the latter type of consciousness be reduced down to a gradual process of comprehending some abstract logical deduction.

These are the words of a nihilist pretending to a knowledge he doesn't have.

So the reason I think your employment of QRS phraseology is vague and pointless because you substitute the process of gaining wisdom (i.e. willingness to be honest about everything no matter the cost) with individual or serial acts of reasoning about various logical constructs (absolute truths) and their applications within different contexts. In other words, the thing which you assert as a necessary condition of wisdom also turns out to be the substance of wisdom itself.

For example, you urge the necessity of understanding "non-existence" because figuring out why various things are non-existent will stop us from attaching ourselves to them. After a while spent doing this, we will also naturally realise that we ourselves are non-existent, and hence become free of our core delusions. This *sounds* logical enough but it's really just a story built around a bunch of assumptions! People just don't function that way, even people obsessed with seeking wisdom.

Someone is certainly creating stories out of a bunch of assumptions, yes.

Again, you're talking about a realm of existence or a mode of living that you haven't experienced yourself. Instead of vomiting out all this useless nonsense, why not drop it all and actually try to live without delusion. Empty your self of everything and plunge into the voidness of your own nature. Then maybe, just maybe, you will see what the magic of spiritual wisdom is all about.

... as soundly representative of the philosophical depth and acuity all genius members are expected to strive towards? RSVP with maximum urgency kkthxbye.

Genius, in all of its vitality and splendour, turns on this very principle.

David has declared that buddha's experience passion and desire, an assertion that goes against the literal meaning of nirvana which is "blowing out" or "quenching". Perhaps Dan and/or Kevin (and others) believe the same.

I would say that enlightenment involves a quenching of the emotions or passions.

If you try to quench the emotions or passions without understanding your true nature, your mind will only become constipated and you will get nowhere.

[Dan Rowden]

There are innumerable in plain sight facts regarding Trump's behaviour

Things which are "in sight" can be perceived differently depending on where you view them from. When a magician is performing illusions on stage, the audience see magic happening in sight, but from the magician's perspective there is no magic happening.

So the claim that things are real because they are "in sight", or to use the Patreon CEO's phrase "manifestly observable", is a grossly fallacious argument.

It also means that any discussion with you on any such empirical matter is meaningless. Goodbye, Kevin.

You're not making a rational argument. I gave strong reasons as to why your "in plain sight" argument was fallacious, and you have made no response.

No, screw you, Kevin, and the disingenuous horse you rode in on. Your flagrant hypocrisy in these discussions does you no credit. Your bullshit attempts to appear more 'rational' because you arbitrarily and falsely invoke logical fallacies and employ tedious rhetorical devices like 'that's just your opinion' and your absurd evidentiary standards that you REFUSE to apply to yourself are a constant embarrassment for you. Your 'editing' of interlocutors' (and your own) points is staggering in its intellectual dishonesty.

Seriously, no reasonable person would read your contributions to this issue and subsequently want to even approach Poison for the Heart. That's how bad this is. For the love of God just admit Trump is a cunt and that despite that you think it's worth it. Please.

[Dan Rowden]

The impeachment charges appear to be sound, as are a few additional charges like obstruction (both Comey & recent) & emoluments.

The problem I have with them is that they are all extremely weak, or possibly entirely without substance.

You mean, like this assessment itself?

If we go by these standards

You mean your extremely weak, 'possibly entirely without substance' standards?

then from here on in, any president will be impeached for just about any reason whatsoever.

What's your opinion about the 'substance' of Clinton's impeachment? And no that's not a cum joke .... necessarily ....

We can burn a witch because she has the nose of witch, because we attached that nose to her.

And if a witch actually turns you into a newt the rest of us can point and laugh and you can do whatever a newt does.

[Dan Rowden]

No, you're reading too much into it.

How should I read it then?

Did you see my link to the Jonathon Pie video? I was saying that if you deeply insult people, by calling them "Nazis" or "irredeemably deplorable" or whatever, then they will naturally turn against you, probably for the long term.

Trump has indeed said very bigoted and racist things about millions of immigrants, without apologising afterward.

I don't think he has. What is your definition of "racist". He naturally won't apologize if he hasn't done anything wrong.

The media has misreported what he has said, reporting his words out of context.

I'm not sure you even know what that context is. You just totally made this up. Watch one of his campaign rallies and tell me this is not a drivelling narcissist; tell me that it's a person that is remotely mature, credible, sane and suitable as a world leader.

[Pam Seeback]

Kevin Solway wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:10 am

Pam Seeback wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 5:14 pm
David has declared that buddha's experience passion and desire, an assertion that goes against the literal meaning of nirvana which is "blowing out" or "quenching". Perhaps Dan and/or Kevin (and others) believe the same.

I would say that enlightenment involves a quenching of the emotions or passions.

David Quinn wrote: If you try to quench the emotions or passions without understanding your true nature, your mind will only become constipated and you will get nowhere.

In my experience, it isn't possible to quench the emotions or passions until one understands one's true nature. Which means, if I am correct in my understanding of the process, one who remains passionate may have received some wisdom of the infinite but has not (yet) fully realized wisdom of the infinite.

I would appreciate hearing your understanding of how passion fits into realized wisdom of the infinite. I will offer mine as a possible counter for yours:

The true nature of the conscious causality or God is infinite subjectivity, that is, that the totality of God relates to the totality of God via interdependent individual interpretations of the empirical and abstract realms.

How I would interpret how Trump fits into this model of infinite subjectivity (in Christian terms, the Father-Son relationship) is that he represents the causality of a high degree of ignorance of its truth, and because of this ignorance, he demonstrates the suffering of passionate emotions, specifically bigotry, anger and lust, a passionate suffering that cannot help but cause an inability to relate to objects in a truthful manner, that is, as an extension or appearance of himself.

This is why I question your assertion that buddhas (realized ones) experience passion. Monks and bodhissatvas who are passionate about becoming enlightened and/or bringing 'others' to enlightenment, yes (definitely a 'higher' passionate view than Trump's), but not one who has realized the vision of the totality of the spiritual nature of the All.

This is also why I mentioned the change in the behaviour of Jesus from his bodhisattva view in the temple where he passionately overturned the money changer's tables to when he was crucified on the cross where he turned the other cheek and asked the Father to forgive the Jews for their ignorance as to his true identity. Up until that moment when he surrendered his spirit to the infinite Father by letting go of the passionate God of attachment, one could describe his experience as do the Catholics, that is, as his Passion (from the Latin verb patior, passus sum meaning to suffer, to bear, to endure), but upon his resurrection (realization of the infinite Father-Son, his buddha nature) his suffering/passion was no more.

The Buddha gave the world the four noble truths: the truth of suffering (passion), the truth of the cause of suffering (passion), the truth of the end of suffering (passion), and the truth of the path that leads to the end of suffering (passion), that of the eightfold path. Ergo, buddhas do not experience passion.

Upon realization of one's infinite subjective-objective nature, what 'replaces' the appearance of passion as the mover of 'self?' This is difficult to express, but probably the best representative word would be 'will' as in Thy loving will be done.

[Dan Rowden]

I follow Trump on Twitter. I see 90% of his tweets. I don't believe you can properly gauge the level of insanity of this man unless you do. But to save you the ignominy or joining Twitter or any social media platform, you can study Trump's peculiar 'character' here:

http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive

This archive only exists becauise Trump is a fucking loon. I hope you get this point.

[Kevin Solway]

Your 'editing' of interlocutors' (and your own) points is staggering in its intellectual dishonesty.

Show me how I "edited" your fallacious "in plain sight" argument.

I did not.

I simply explained why it is a fallacious argument.

And I don't agree that quoting people is the same as "editing".