We recently discussed the controversial commission created by President Joe Biden to discuss calls to pack the Supreme Court as well as a number of truly looney ideas for circumventing or reducing the authority of the Court’s conservative majority. Some members however decided not to wait even for a commission that is itself packed with liberal members. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-NY, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others will be announcing their plan to immediately add four new justices to the Court. The number is calculated purely to give liberals a 7-6 majority on the Court. It is about a subtle as a B-52 run.
Many of us have discussed the expansion of the Supreme Court through the years. Over 20 years ago, I recommended the expansion of the Court to 17 or 19 members. However, that recommendation would occur over many years and would not give advocates the short-term majority that they are seeking. That is the difference between reforming and packing the Court.
The bill today strips away any pretense of principle. It is pure unadulterated court packing. It is the very proposal denounced by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before she died. Recently, Justice Stephen Breyer wanted against the move. One would think he would be immune from the mob as one of the most consistently liberal justices in our history. However, this week, Breyer warned against any move to expand the Supreme Court. He also rejected the characterization of the current Court as “conservative” or ideologically rigid. Breyer was swiftly denounced by figures like cable news host Mehdi Hasan who called him “naive” and called for his retirement. Demand Justice, a liberal group calling for court packing, had a billboard truck in Washington the next day in the streets of Washington warning “Breyer, retire. Don’t risk your legacy.” (Demand Justice once employed White House press secretary Jen Psaki as a communications consultant, and Psaki was on the advisory board of one of its voting projects.)
With the opposition of justices like Ginsburg and Breyer (and presumably the majority if not the unanimous Court), this is nothing short of a hostile takeover. It would reduce the Court to a glorified FCC with life tenure.
The chances of succeeding in this ignoble goal are low. However, the real question is how many Democratic senators and House members will step forward today to denounce such raw court packing. These politicians often decry what they view as attacks on the rule of law. Well, this is not just an attack but a virtual declaration of war on the rule of law. If Democrats just add members to give them a controlling majority, the Supreme Court will have little authority or integrity. It will become the manufactured majority of a party with a razor thin control of Congress of two seats in the House and a 50-50 split in the Senate.
I am particularly disappointed to see Nadler in this group. I never imagined that I would see the day that the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would step forward to call for raw court packing. It is a sign of our current political environment where rage overwhelms reason.
407 thoughts on “Hostile Takeover: Democrats To Introduce Bill To Pack The Supreme Court”
Lol Stealing the election, bringing in their totalitarian regime at gunpoint, hiding behind 30,000 troops and razor wire, because they are afraid of WE THE PEOPLE, with help from their GESTAPO: DOJ FIB CIA SUPREME COURT, and PROPAGANDA MEDIA, wasn’t hostile enough for you? This is what it takes to be called a hostile take over. You people who write this garbage are tards of the first order.
David Michaels although your language lacks subtlety I have to agree with the substance of your argument. After a blatantly, brazenly stolen election following 4 years of slow-burn insurrection starting with Strzok’s “insurance policy” and all downhill from there, Professor Turley is shocked, shocked! at the hostile takeover of the Supreme Court. I really just read this column for the comments at this point since Professor Turley lost me definitively at his teary, giddy description of Biden’s inauguration. Only a Democrat would consider a successful coup a sign of impending unity. There’s an expression in Italian, “Ci sei o ci fai?” it means, “Are you really that stupid or are you just pretending?” and it applies here.
I think that Turley is wrong about it being “rage” that is driving this. I think it is just a naked desire for power. Democrats do not have principles per se. Whatever helps them is good and whatever hurts them is bad. I think the new term for this “tribal.”
So quit looking at this as a short-term butt-hurt thing. It isn’t. It is why smart and good people should quit voting for Democrats.
Sadly, our so-called ‘leaders’ are failing us. currently, these hyper-partisan buffoons Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, VP Harris and other characters need to be term-limited out of office as soon as possible- with the exception of Pres Biden who sadly is too old and feeble. They have lost their moral compass. Our immoral politicians are supported by extremist including Psaki, the ACLU, Dorsey, Zuckerberg and every other zealot who has lost their sense of perspective all in the name of their skewed sense of justice. how many in this lot actually care about this country, how many served in the military? how many of them were born into poverty? How many truly advocate against injustice and are striving to make this a better more equal place for all whites, Hispanics, Asians, blacks, men, women, etc… too many of these zealots represent the mob on Twitter (thanks, Dorsey) and supporting are everyone who has lost their minds and have an axe to grind. When are my Democratic and Republican moderate friends going to demand sensibility and accountability from both of their party leaders and get us back to a place where we can have a decent discussion on the courts and abstain from name-calling when someone says something we disagree with like Justice Breyer. Professor, I hate to let you in on a secret but moderates who see bad judgment on both sides are far fewer than ever before. Sadly, we get what we deserve.
Susan , Sadly I see no change in the moderate tools and the left nutter apparatchik class in our goobermint. They are all pigs rolling in the mud funded by filthy lucre and driven by power. Until the food is cut off these pigs will continue to bloat on our dime….. some animals are more equal than other animals……pigs comes to mind. George Orwell predicted this so perfectly.
The petulant children trying to rule by emotion alone, which, inevitably, leads to chaos and authoritarianism.
Here is a prime test to determine Turley’s fair-mindedness. On February 16, 2021, he posted this headline to an article:
“New Comey E-mail Raises Additional Questions about his Use and Defense of the Steele Dossier.”
The title explains the gist of the article. At the end of which, Turley critically predicted that the “media is unlikely to follow up on this new document…”
Ever since the Mueller Report, Turley on several occasions has repeated the Trump/Fox News narrative that there was “no collusion” in spite of the fact that Manafort was known to have provided to his contact Konstantin Kilimnik internal Trump polling data. It was not known then whether that data had made its way to Russian intelligence because Kilimnik could not be interrogated and Manafort for his part lied (no doubt hoping to receive a presidential pardon if he kept his mouth shut).
Just today it was revealed by the Treasury Department that our intelligence agencies have determined that Kilimnik did provide that internal polling data to the Russian government: “Having the polling data would have allowed Russia to better understand the Trump campaign strategy- including where the campaign was focusing resources- at a time when the Russian government was carrying out its own efforts to undermine Donald J. Trump’s opponent.”
If this “direct pipeline from the campaign to Russian spies at a time when the Kremlin was engaged in a covert effort to sabotage the 2016 presidential election” is not considered “collusion” by Turley, then he is an abject liar.
However, let’s find out if Turley is a hypocrite as well. Let’s see if he will post an article commenting on this new information or, rather, does that which he criticized the mainstream media in the past, namely, failing to follow-up on a new and revealing document raising additional questions about the Trump/Fox News “no collusion” false narrative.
Of course, I will be surprised if Turley does comment on the new intelligence report about Manafort’s collaboration with Russian intelligence since it was not reported- shockingly- by Fox News prime time hosts! Rather, Ingraham reported on the other news revelation yesterday that the intelligence community had a low to moderate confidence in the judgement that Russia paid a bounty on the heads of killed US servicemen. I expect that Turley will dutifully do Fox’s bidding by reinforcing this narrative while ignoring the one discrediting him and his employer.
Fair enough Jeff but will you please source your assertions?
As reported in the NYT’s yesterday under the headline:
“Biden Administration Says Russian Intelligence Obtained Trump Campaign Data
A Treasury Department document shed more light on links between the campaign and Russian spies.”
Please read it. Judging by some of the comments to my post, it is apparent that some people will not believe what they refuse to know.
You still have not provided an actual source.
You have an NYT story that purportedly exists that you have not linked that claims to have a source that you and probably NYT have not identified, that claims Treasury has a document that we do not have, that makes a claim that we only know what is from an anonymous source.
If this story were actually true – which is highly unlikely the leak would be a federal crime.
We saw lots of exactly this kind of garbage over the past 4 years – government insiders leaking false stories to papers like NYT.
It is not a federal crime to leak something that is not true.
“You have an NYT story that purportedly exists that you have not linked that claims to have a source that you and probably NYT have not identified, that claims Treasury has a document that we do not have, that makes a claim that we only know what is from an anonymous source. If this story were actually true – which is highly unlikely the leak would be a federal crime.”
Jeez, John, the story is all over the news. The source is not anonymous. The source is Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. She make a legal announcement. She did not leak information. She did not commit a crime.
“This would not have come from Treasury.”
But it did. For good reason. Which you’d understand if you’d read the details from the Treasury announcement –
The case was yours to make. It is not everyone else’s obligation to search out your claims and then figure out exactly how you are stretching them.
I ultimately found the Treasury document you refered to – it is a regurgutation of old and debunked claims.
Regardless, if we can not trust sworn warrants applications issued to the FISA court – why should we trust this ?
It is true that Russie meddles in our elections – just as we meddle in those of the world.
Russia has NOT interfered with the actual election process itself.
The claims in this Document – if true are nothing meaningful. That has been one of the problems with the nonsense of the left from the start.
How exactly – If True would the allegations regarding Russia be different than the conduct of John Oliver ? He is not a citizen and he has sought to influence US voters. How would they be different from Voice of America ?
Of course that beggs the question of whether the allegations are true.
So you tell me – why should we trust the same people who have been lying to us – pretty much constantly.
And not just lying about Trump. They have lied about Biden, they have lied about Nigeria, they have lied about Anthrax.
I can go back to the 60’s and cite myriads of lies by our government – especially the inteligence services
They lied in huge ways about vietnam.
These are the people you want others to trust ?
Biden wants to get even with Putin – who has been besting him since he was inaugurated.
So long as Biden does not go to war with Russia – who cares ?
If Biden wants to pile sanctions on top of sanctions – it is not like there is much left to sanction russia over – who cares.
Russia is a third rate world power that only has a consequential place on the world stage because they have the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.
And Putin has been playing Biden since he was inaugurated. Biden backed down when Putin threatened US warships in the Black Sea.
And Putin sent more troops to Ukriane – because he knew Biden was weak.
There is one and only one consequential thing that has been done to thwart Russia – and that has been Trump’s US guarantee of European energy supplies. That was made possible by US fracking. and though Biden is playing games with Fracking – he has maintained Trump’s guarantee.
All the rest of this is just the political theater of a weak president.
Much Ado about nothing.
All Storm and Fury signifying nothing.
And Putin knows it.
And most of the rest of us do too.
but you clearly do not.
“The case was yours to make. ”
No, John, it was Jeff’s argument, not mine. I am not Jeff, as should be obvious from our names and icons. I only pointed out some of the factual errors in your response.
As for your bloviating opinions vomited in multiple responses (did your teachers never teach you to edit?), I’m not going to waste my time responding to them, as I don’t care what your opinions are.
“No, John, it was Jeff’s argument, not mine. I am not Jeff, as should be obvious from our names and icons.”
No one can tell by the icon of an anonymous individual except based on what is written. You don’t have a name or an icon. Everyone on the blog has access to that name and icon. You are making a fool of yourself.
LMAO Allan. Jeff does have a name and icon. Our names and icons are distinct. You are making a fool of yourself.
The fact remains that Jeff, not me, is the one who made the argument. I only responded to John’s stupid comment with some evidence that John had made false claims about,.
“Jeff does have a name and icon. Our names and icons are distinct.”
Anonymous the Stupid, you really were shortchanged whey brains were given out. Jeff has a distinct icon that can only be used if one knows his email address. You, on the other hand have a generic icon and name that anyone can use. They can even forget to put their name and address in and their posting will have the exact same icon and name as yours. The two identifiers will be indistinguishable. That means when Jeff signs in appropriately we know it is Jeff, but he can also be under the anonymous name and icon. I didn’t realize you were so stupid that you wouldn’t know this.
You need to take a break. Maybe you take some courses to teach you logic because much of what you don’t know comes naturally to others.
Jeff has an Identity – you do not.
That does not mean you are not Jeff.
It means only you know – and you have no credibility.
You are accusing me of making a false claim.
You are obligated to support that accusation.
Nothing you claim is obvious is actually obvious.
So long as you are posting as anonymous you can be anyone or no one.
“No, John, it was Jeff’s argument, not mine.”
You made yourself a part of it.
No one forced you
“I only pointed out some of the factual errors in your response.”
False – and as noted that case is YOURS to make, and you have failed.
Whne I am paid to post – I will be happy to meet the requirements of those who pay me – for editing, grammer, punctuation or spelling.
As you are not paying – I have no interest in your demand.
“I’m not going to waste my time responding to them, as I don’t care what your opinions are.”
But you clearly do. You “waste your time” constantly
and then go scurrying away with remarks like that above when your time reponding proves truly wasted.
When your arguments fail, when the facts are not to be found.
It is pretty disengenuous to jump into the middle of something, get caught flattfooted and scurry away shouting “I do not care”.
Of course you care, or you would not have posted.
Poor John, you’re so confused. I care about correcting some of your factually false claims. I couldn’t care less about your OPINIONS. Over and over, you confuse the two.
“I care about correcting some of your factually false claims.”
But it is self evident that you are wrong.
You either do not care or there are no factually false claims.
How is that self evident ?
Because if you did care – you would address them – but you do not.
“I couldn’t care less about your OPINIONS. Over and over, you confuse the two.”
Also self evidently wrong. You keep ranting about factually false claims – but only as something in your imagination – not as something real.
It is both false and irrelevant that I confuse opinions with facts.
Because even on your own terms you refuse to address whatever it is that YOU consider to be factually false.
Finally – all opinions are not equal. Even the left does not actaully beleive they are – but you argue as if they are – when other arguments elude you.
If that’s what you believe, then you waste your time all the time, since you lack credible arguments.
Once again, you have a hard time with logic and consistency.
This is not about what I beleive – My responses to you have directly addressed what YOU have said, or claimed or asserted.
I frequently end up doing that with left wing nuts – because you do not offer anything else.
You make claims you will not support, accusations that you run from when confronted,
and you drive every debate into a forest of fallacies.
I would much rather debate real issues with you.
But so long as you choose to hide from those – I will follow you wherever YOU go.
If I have a problem with logic – you could show that.
If I have a problem with consistency – you could show that.
I ask precisely that from you and others on the left all the time.
Instead of proving your claims – you run off in the weeds and hide.
Regardless, I am not the one whose responses are long chains of logical fallacies.
You claim I have inaccurately commented on your vague and nonspecific post.
That is correct. When you are vague – you do not get to expect others to do your research for you.
Regardless why is some document from the Treasury to justify sanctions – which are alreaady justifiable, but fundimentally meaningless, that repeats lots of garbage – the whole collusion delusion nonsense, in anyway important.
As I did correctly note – we have seen lots of this before. We have even seen false testimony in congress by many of the same actors.
So why do you think this is important ?
It would not be important if it was actually true.
But it isn’t, and you STILL have not provided a credible source.
Just the little boy who cried wolf.
You are correct – it did come from treasury – and that is another reason that it is of dubious merit.
Treasury is NOT part of the intelligence community. Not that the intelligence community is trustworthy.
Regardless, read the entire document – it is full of debunked nonsense – so why is this particular claim credible ?
It REMAINS an unsourced claim.
If you beleive it is actually true – you will know it is true when Putin disappears the actual source.
I really do not care is a weak Biden throws more nerfballs at Putin – so long as he does not get the US sucked into a war with Russia.
All we have here is the left really really angry that Trump won and trying laughably to blame it on Russia.
You pretend that polling data is like the nuclear codes.
Polling data is acquired buy – wait for it – polling people.
Republicans do it. Democrats do it. Myriads of media sources do it.
You can do it yourself. You can pay others to do it.
It is not magical. Contra your claim it does NOT share strategy. It is a PART of the basis by which campaigns decide on strategy.
But those are not the same thing.
Regardless – listen to yourself.
YOUR actual claim here is that Manafort knowingly shared the secret sauce with Klimnick who Might be a Russian asset and definitely is a US state department asset, in approx June 2016 – got fired shortly after and something like 5 months later Russia mostly after the election was over used that information to run a bunch of facebook political adds – that did not clearly favor any candidate and that were so poorly done that they were laugably stupid.
And THIS magically threw the election to Trump.
Are you really this stupid ?
Of course you are – you also beleive that Putin favored Trump.
Why ? What is the evidence of this ?
Would Hillary – Russian Reset 1 and 2, Clinton foundation russian oligarch pay to play to the tune of 140M dollars, Hillary Uranium One, Hillary whose husband was piad 500K for speaking in Russia, Hillary whose energy policy would have left Russia in the catbird seat with massive leaverage against Europe – Hillary – who had russian agents working for her on the steele dossier – that Hillary Putin would try to thwart ?
While Trump whose policies were universally at odds with Russia’s interests, and who could not get a Signature hotel built in Russia – that is the person Putin would have favored ?
The only political actors in 2026 colluding with actual russian agents – were democrats.
Regardless, YOU beleive an absolutely nonsensical claim that the leader of the Russian nation acted against his own countries best interests in 2016 to favor someone – he clearly did not favor. What EVER did Trump get from Russia ?
Actually it is NOT fair enough.
As VP Joe Biden participated in the collusion delussion.
We have had years of lies and misrepresentations coming out of government agencies attempting to frame Trump – and that was while Trump was president.
There is no way I would beleive a story from the Biden administration. These are all the same people who staged the attempted soft coup in the first place.
Further the story makes no sense.
This would not have come from Treasury.
And if true it would not have been made public because with near absolute certainty Putin could figure out who provided the information to the US if it was true, and they would be dead.
But left wing nuts are not capable of anything beyond shallow analysis.
I would further note – though there is no way the US government would allow this information to leak if they had it.
Putin could just as easily provide a false leak.
It is in Putin’s interest to make Biden look good – because Biden is actually weak and an easily manipulated adversary.
Like I said before, some people will not believe what they refuse to know. I realize that John Say and I will never see eye to eye. Our entire world views are mutually incompatible. He distrusts me, and I think he is irrational. I just hope that we can co-exist in this country without getting into a bloody fight because neither one of us is going to give in to the other otherwise.
Jeff your differences can be easily resolved. John asks for evidence and you have none. You want to co-exist but you insult him by stating things about him that aren’t true. The fact is that the divide can easily be rectified if when you promote what you perceive to be a fact that you provide proof that the fact is real. You don’t do that and then insult people that have a different opinion and believe the facts do not bear out your conclusion.
You appear unwilling to yield to fact. John on the other hand is willing to yield to fact. That tells us that the reason for the the divide you talk about. You do not have the ability to distinguish fact from opinion. You draw conclusions out of thin air and then seal your mind shut to any facts that could influence the mind of a reasonable individual.
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
Mark Twain was a very bright fellow. Jeff, your problem is that you think you know but you always fall short when evidence is asked for. You think you can hide behind a lot of rhetoric, but eventually one asks ‘Where’s the beef’ and you are caught short because you have none.
John provided facts, plenty of them. You provided nothing but hot air. Maybe you would do better if you tried to stick with what you know.
“Like I said before, some people will not believe what they refuse to know.”
Does this statement make any sense to you ?
And why are you fixated on beleif ? Nothing regarding Government should be a matter of beleif.
We do not use force against others because of what we beleive to the true, but what we know to be true.
We do not arrive at knowledge through beleif. We arrive there through facts, logic, reason.
“I realize that John Say and I will never see eye to eye.”
What has that to do with anything ?
I have no doubt that we can see eye to eye on many things.
But not where you choose to impose your will on others by force through government.
“Our entire world views are mutually incompatible.”
That appears to be correct – you beleive things, you make choices based on a religious faith in your chosen leaders.
You do not follow facts, logic or reason. You are still selling debunked bonsense.
“He distrusts me”
You have not given anyone a reason to trust you.
You are not entitled to trust. Another problem with the left – you all seem to think that you are entitled to everything – including trust and credibility.
You are not.
“and I think he is irrational.”
What you “think” is unimportant. What you can show through argument – via facts logic reason is relevant.
“I just hope that we can co-exist in this country without getting into a bloody fight because neither one of us is going to give in to the other otherwise.”
Coexistance is trivially easy. All that is necescary is not infringing on each others rights by force without justification.
That is all that is required. Government would be entirely necescary if all of us were capable of that. But we are not.
The purpose of government is to thwart our impulse to impose our will on others by force without justification.
And the fundimental difference in our worldview is that not only don’t you accept that, but you explicitly seek to use government as a weapon to impose your view on others by force.
Below is the american creed. It is the most important words that any american has ever spoken. It is who we are as a people.
It is our greatest influence on the world.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”
It is also self evidently NOT what you “beleive”. It is NOT your worldview.
It is the fundimental and irreconcilable point of disagreement between us.
It is why we will not be able to coexist – because when you seek to use government to infringe on rights rather than to secure them, and you do so without sufficient justification – there is no “coexist”.
Regardless, you do not want coexistance.
You want capitulation.
“Nothing regarding Government should be a matter of beleif.”
Sure it should.
Knowledge is a proper subset of belief (namely, it’s justified true belief – https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli). If you reject belief, you reject knowledge, John.
God – notabysmall bad misrepresentations of plato at stanford.
And the idiotic word games.
Something is true – because it can be proven to be true, or because if it were false that would contradict reality as we know it.
I am not interested in the stupid words games with you.
You can beleive things that are True.
You can beleive things that are false.
But beleif is insufficient to establish anything.
The fact that a few axioms are not proveable, does not mean their foundation is mere beleif.
Your article uses JTB – you fixate on Belief – and fail to grasp that Justification is necescary as is truth.
Knowledge is also a formal subset of all ideas, that does not make every idea knowledge, nor most ideas, In fact a miniscule portion of ideas are knowledge.
You are making the same mistake that we dealt with on prime numbers or on truth as a whole.
From the set of numbers the probability of picking a number at random that is prime is incredibly small.
From the set of beleifs they probability of selection one at random that is true is incredibly small.
Tjere is a very tiny portion of knowledge – axioms or postulates and we strive to keep that number as low as possible, that we must accept as true even though we can not prove.
But even those we do not merely beleive.
We can not prove a postulate. But it is not a postulate if we can disprove it.
It is not a postulate if there has ever in all of history been an instance in which it might not have been true.
It is not a postulate if it is ever in conflict with other things we know to be true or that would require the world to be different if false.
If you wish to call that a Justified True beleif fine – but the burden for justification is incredibly high.
Belief is the domain of religion.
Postulates are more than beleifs. They are things that we are absolutely certain are true.
They are things that if false would result in a world that would not be able to function.
BTW this has been discussed before on this blog.
Please explain how the world would continue to work – how our bridges would stand if the postulates of mathematics were uncertain ?
Regardless, I am not interested in these stupid words games with you.
“you fixate on Belief – and fail to grasp that Justification is necescary as is truth.”
I pointed out the fact that knowledge (justified true belief) is a subset of belief. I’m well aware that both justification and truth are necessary for a belief to be knowledge. For goodness sakes, I’m the one who pointed that out to you.
What you cannot seem to get through your thick skull is that knowledge is a SUBSET of belief, and therefore your claim “Nothing regarding Government should be a matter of beleif” is nonsense. If we know something about the government, if some governmental decision is based on knowledge, then it is necessarily a matter of belief — specifically, it is a matter of knowledge, which is a subset of belief.
Likewise, your claim “Belief is the domain of religion” is bullish*t. SOME beliefs are the domain of religion, and SOME beliefs are NOT the domain of religion. For example, scientific knowledge, which is a subset of belief, is NOT the domain of religion, and mathematical knowledge, which is a subset of belief, is NOT the domain of religion.
You once again demonstrate your weak understand of math — in this case, the concept of subset — and you instead pretend that it’s a word game. It is not.
You’re so mathematically ignorant that in our earlier exchange, you couldn’t even bring yourself to admit that there are real world applications for spherical geometry simply because you couldn’t wrap your head around the fact that there is no single axiomatic system that corresponds to all real world geometric applications, and you’re wedded to Euclidean geometry, the only one you’re familiar with.
““you fixate on Belief – and fail to grasp that Justification is necescary as is truth.”
Your own web link disagrees with you
“I pointed out the fact that knowledge (justified true belief) is a subset of belief.”
As you are making the argument EVERYTHING is a subset of beleif – that is not particularly useful.
“I’m well aware that both justification and truth are necessary for a belief to be knowledge.”
Then you can retract you BS claim.
“For goodness sakes, I’m the one who pointed that out to you.”
No, you are the one who linked to a web site that does not support your argument.
“What you cannot seem to get through your thick skull is that knowledge is a SUBSET of belief,”
You have made everything into a subset of beleif – again that is not useful.
“and therefore your claim “Nothing regarding Government should be a matter of beleif” is nonsense.”
Of course it isn;t – your still making these idiotic pendantic word game arguments.
Ones that you are likely wrong about – An Axiom is a JTB – but all truth is NOT a subset of belief. Everything Justified is NOT a subset of beleif.
Your argument rests on the claim that everything is a matter of belief which even if true would be a very poor argument.
Would it help if I rephrased ? Beleif is insufficient basis for anything in government.
I think the prior formulation is actually more clear.
Since you are intent on playing pedantic word games.
Websters defines beleif as Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
Lets use that definition in the context of YOUR counter arguments.
Is everything that a person accepts as true – true ?
Is everything that is true something that is accepted as true ?
Obviously both of those are false. So now we have a defition of “beleif” that does not make everything into a beleif.
That BTW ends your set and subset argument.
I am not interested in further debate over whether your counter arguments are correct with some other defintion of beleif.
If you are going to play idiotic pedantic word games – then you will have to live with my doing the same.
Particularly when the defintion I choose – more accurately reflects what I said – and since you are attacking what I said and trying to change its meaning with YOUR defintions – I am perfectly free to turn the tables.
So back to Government.
“Nothing regarding Government should be driven merely by what some accept as true.”
Back to religion.
“Mental acceptance and conviction (as opposed to what can be demonstrated) is the domain of religion”
Your argument has once again failed as I demonstrated in prior posts.
I am going to address why – because the error is typical of leftists – though you get some credit for being more creative.
Your argument failed – because it relies on being able to impose YOUR definition of a word.
You atleast used an actual defintion but one from outside the context of the debate.
I am near certain that you are WRONG – even inside the context that YOU chose.
But I do not need to prove that you are wrong in every single context and for every possible definition of beleif to prove you are wrong with respect to our argument.
Many words mean very specific and precise things in specific contexts that they do not mean in other contexts or in common use.
I strongly suspect that your SPECIFIC application of mathematical set theory to Philosophy was error. But I am not going to argue that.
John, I am enjoying reading your debate with anonymous and Jeff. I don’t think they have the ability to absorb most of your points.
You wrote: “Your argument failed – because it relies on being able to impose YOUR definition of a word.”
John, I don’t want to rehash prior discussions, but if you go back a long time you will remember a discussion we had. Your statement above represented my logical argument in that distant discussion. No need to discuss. I thought you might want to think about it.
I expected to hear back from you on specifically this.
In this specific instance I deliberately chose to confront anonymous with a dictionary defintion of belief as a means to escape from a convoluted mathemtaical argument that had nothing to do with the original discussion.
I have however subsequently responded to YOU that the COMMON understanding of “beleif” does not include things that are proveably true.
My point from our previous debate still holds.
Generally – and more specificaly in the realm of government and force – it is the COMMON meaning that matters.
Even outside of that domain – defintions are driven by meaning – not the other way arround.
And finally, though meaning is maleable – most of the orwellian games of the left are NOT organic changes in meaning.
They are deliberate efforts to distort. They are either intended to weaken, expand (or both) meaning to conflate things that are not the same or to make the expression of some thoughts impossible.
Orwell is probably the pnenultimate expositor of the dangerous to manipulating meaning.
“I expected to hear back from you on specifically this.
In this specific instance I deliberately chose to confront anonymous with a dictionary defintion “
John, don’t worry. I approve.
Sorry – one other point. I have no problem with precise defintions in domain specific areas that have nothing to do with force and government. Though we must not forget that precision and those defintions are domain specific.
“You’re so mathematically ignorant that in our earlier exchange, you couldn’t even bring yourself to admit that there are real world applications for spherical geometry simply because you couldn’t wrap your head around the fact that there is no single axiomatic system that corresponds to all real world geometric applications, and you’re wedded to Euclidean geometry, the only one you’re familiar with.”
What a gigantic pile of horse crap.
YOU are the person who introduced Geometry and various advanced maths.
Further – can you remove the Maoist nonsense from everything you discuss.
A failure to parrot whatever incantations you demand, a failure to affirmatively assert something as truth is not a rejection of that truth.
I said little about spherical geometry – though I did analogize your different mathematical or geometric systems to Newtonian physics – which is both incorrect, and very useful a substantial portion of the world of interest to ordinary humans.
Of course there are real world applications of spherical geometry.
That does not make spherical geometry relevant to the debate we were having.
Nor am I am not particularly wedded to Euclidian geometry.
YOU took an analogy regarding mathematical axioms and went off into flights of fancy through different geometries and other mathematics.
In the end you made the same mistake you have just made. Pretending that you could reason from broad analogies accross many domains to domain specific claims that can not be applied – atleast not precisely accross domains.
You have accused me of seeing all problems as Euclidian – because I am purportedly only familiar with Euclidian geometry.
But that is the error that you have made – seeing all problems through the language and defintions of narrow domains of advanced math.
One of the things that I did say about newtonian Physics – that applies to spherical geometry is that it is only useful within its proper domain.
“For goodness sakes, I’m the one who pointed that out to you.”
Anonymous, You did not point that out to John. He already knew that. More than that, he understood it. You pointed to a link that you probably didn’t even read fully or understand, but you got enough information to pursue ignorant claims. You don’t understand how to take a generalization to a specific or a specific to a generalization. Your logical sequences are filled with false paths.
I only spent a few minutes reading the Plato/Stanford link.
I did not examine the section references thoroughly.
I am actually too familiar with plato at Sanford as my marxist nephew is a philosophy doctoral student there and might even have something to do the website.
Regardless, in a quick overview I found nothing i disagreed with in the Section on “Justified True Beleif”.
It contradicted nothing I have said – recently or in the past and supported much of it.
Fundimentally it used different language to say the same things I have been saying for years.
Shortly after “Anonymous” decided to throw philosophy, geometry, set theory and word mangling into a blender and try to use the Plato site to manufacture a contradiction with my own remarks, that both does not exist and is entirely irrelevant to what was being debated.
Atleast some of this hinged on a different use of the word Belief by Plato.
Most of us (left and right and just people) do not include things that are provably true within the domain of “beleifs”.
And many Dictionary defintions of beleif reflect that use.
Plato – and anonymous assumed everything is a matter of beleif, and then created distinctions for true beleifs and justified beleifs.
This created a pedantic oportunity for Anonymous to attack my remarks that force could not be justified based on beleif.
Obviously if you define beleif to include everything that is true and every thing that is justified – then anonymous is correct and I am wrong.
But that is NOT a normal definition of beleif and more specifically it was NOT the defintion that I was obviously using.
In ordinary use we do not talk about belief when we are refering to things that have been proven.
In fact we use beleif to mean the opposite – we Beleive – take someone on faith, when we do not or can not know.
We commonly exclude – as some dictionary definitions do – things that are proveably true from the domain of beleif.
Finally Anonymous has a somewhat more solid point specifically with respect to axioms or postulates. Which I would equate with the standford/Plato sites Justified True beleifs.
There are a few foundational “truths” that we have that can not be proven, but we accept because they have never been false, and because the world we have would not work as it did if they were false.
Anonymous – as is his wont – went off into mathematics – geometry mostly and specifically non-euclidian geometry as a total completely irrelevant tangent. Nothing in his digression undermined anything I said regarding axioms even though I was speaking far more broadly than mathematical axioms. Anonymous seemed to think that domain specific differences in axioms shot holes in what I had asserted.
Though he never made clear how or what holes these were.
Fundimentally his argument eventually boiled down to
“I am brilliant and supremely knowledgeable in advanced mathematics and therefore you are wrong” About what was never really all that clear. As best as I can tell I was wrong because his prefered and often context specific narrow defintion of a word was slightly different than my common use general use of the same word.
This is not the first time He has made the same argument.
Anonymous seems to revel is showing off his knowledge of non-euclidian geometry.
I am strongly suspicious that some of what he claimed was wrong. But it has been 40 years since I delved into non-euclidian geometry and Anonymous does clearly know more about it that I do, And I do not wish to spend several hours trying to determine whether some statement of his that has nothing at all to do with the core debate that started this is actually correct.
But I will address ONE point – a large portion of his argument seems to lead inevitably to the conclusion that there is absolute truth.
While that is an extremely appealing conclusion, and i can see how those who dwell in some narrow domains of mathematics might have that perception. The foundations of science are inherently probabalistic, not absolute.
the specific standford/plato link ALSO appeared to have this problem of appearing to drive towards absolute truth. I suspect and hope that is just a perception of the specific section linked to.
Life would be simpler if that were not true. In fact many of the arguments that I have with lefties would go away – because we could move from highly probable to absolute true.
And all of this relates to the broader debate.
Ultimately nothing is true with absolute certainty. I think it is highly likely that many things are false with absolute certainty. Regardless there is infinitely more that is false than that is true.
Between what is false and what is highly probably true are things that are likely true to varying degrees of certainty.
We, I, Anonymous, … can talk of facts and opinions. but ultimately all those distinctions are is degrees of certainty.
A fact is just something with a very high probability of being true. While an oppinion is something with less probability of being true.
And that means that all opinions are NOT equal.
“Your own web link disagrees with you”
Yet you haven’t quoted anything from the website and from me that are mutually contradictory. You presumably believe what you claim, but that doesn’t make it true, and you certainly haven’t substantiated it.
“you are making the argument EVERYTHING is a subset of beleif … You have made everything into a subset of beleif”
More bullish*t. I haven’t said anything that suggests that. Our sun, our galaxy, other galaxies, chemical elements, other species, … exist whether or not anyone believes in their existence, and whether or not people are even aware of them. Their existence is not a subset of belief. There are many examples of facts that are not subsets of belief. Knowledge — justified true belief by people — is a subset of belief, but that doesn’t imply that everything is a subset of belief.
Over and over again you infer garbage and then attribute your garbage inference to me. I feel sorry for you that you have such difficulty with accurate inferences.
“An Axiom is a JTB”
Only within a more limited — and clearly specified — context. It’s assumed to be true. It cannot be proved, and in some contexts it’s false. For example, as I already pointed out to you, the Parallel Postulate (an axiom in Euclidean geometry) is false in non-Euclidean geometries. You attempted to dismiss this by claiming that non-Euclidean geometries have no applications in real life, which is total nonsense.
“Is everything that a person accepts as true – true ?”
No, nor have I suggested otherwise. People can and do have false beliefs.
“Is everything that is true something that is accepted as true ?”
No, nor have I suggested otherwise. There are many things that are true that we don’t yet know, and some we may never know.
“So now we have a defition of “beleif” that does not make everything into a beleif.”
Nonsense. False beliefs (by nature of being beliefs) are a subset of beliefs. Beliefs whose truth is unknown (by nature of being beliefs) are a subset of beliefs. Some beliefs aren’t even T/F. You have a weak understanding of epistemology.
LMAO that you can recognize that the answer to “Is everything that a person accepts as true – true ?” is “No,” but you can’t accept that everything YOU accept as true, including your own arguments, aren’t always true. You are oblivious.
“Your argument failed – because it relies on being able to impose YOUR definition of a word.”
Nonsense. Knowledge as justified true belief isn’t MY definition. It’s a standard definition among those who study epistemology (the philosophic study of knowledge), and it’s also found in standard dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes things like “The characterization of knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) (one of the main preoccupations of epistemology) as ‘justified true belief’ may be traced back to Plato (Theaetetus 201, esp. c9–d1) …” and “1828 R. Whately Diss. Reasoning ii. §2 in Elem. Logic 230 Knowledge..implies..firm belief,..of what is true,..on sufficient grounds.”
You seem to have tremendous difficulty dealing accurately with evidence that counters your claims.
Since you want to fixate on JTB – you can meet all three requirements of JTB and still not have actual knowledge.
Anonymous the Stupid either didn’t read the entire link he provided or he couldn’t understand it. Anonymous the Stupid is a fool with many opinions that have no basis in reality. This isn’t educational or sport for him. His politics rule him and the blog has become his life.
“’You’re so mathematically ignorant that in our earlier exchange, you couldn’t even bring yourself to admit that there are real world applications for spherical geometry simply because you couldn’t wrap your head around the fact that there is no single axiomatic system that corresponds to all real world geometric applications, and you’re wedded to Euclidean geometry, the only one you’re familiar with.’
“What a gigantic pile of horse crap.”
No, John, it isn’t horse crap. After YOU introduced axioms into the discussion, I pointed out that planar, spherical and hyperbolic geometries have some axioms that overlap and other axioms that contradict each other (namely, the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry and it’s alternatives in spherical and hyperbolic geometries), and YOU said “I am not debating hypothetical worlds,” when the fact is that planar, spherical and hyperbolic geometries all have applications in our very non-hypothetical world.
YOU are the person who introduced axioms into the discussion, but then claimed “Your entire digression on Axioms was nonsense – even if your claims were true – it is STILL nonsense. We are not discussing parallel universes, we are not discussing hypotheticals.” Non-Euclidean geometries are part of our very real universe and not a hypothetical. You simply couldn’t admit it.
YOU are the one who claimed “You spherical geometry argument is equal nonsense. YOU introduced contexts other than reality,” when spherical geometry is very much a part of reality. Pilots use spherical geometry in navigating our globe, for example.
Darren has removed the entire discussion (looks like he removed the top comment from that subthread, a comment from carpslaw on March 24, 2021 at 2:30 PM, which included the claim “science doesn’t have a way of explaining or comprehending infinity”; removing carpslaw’s comment automatically removes all of the responses to it, and the responses to those responses, …, including the discussion between the two of us), but here’s the Google cache of it –
“Of course there are real world applications of spherical geometry.”
Glad you can finally admit it. It’s only one of your many false responses in the discussion, maybe you’ll admit some of your other mistakes.
“That does not make spherical geometry relevant to the debate we were having.”
Sure it is. It’s totally relevant to YOUR mistaken claims about axioms, which is why I introduced different geometries into the discussion in the first place. You just can’t bring yourself to admit it.
“that is the error that you have made – seeing all problems through the language and defintions of narrow domains of advanced math.”
LMAO. YOU introduced axioms into the discussion, saying “Mathemtics (and logic, and science) all rest on axioms – these are things that we know to be true – but can not prove,” and now you complain that I responded to a claim about math and axioms by focusing on how mathematicians define and view it.
“No, John, it isn’t horse crap. After YOU introduced axioms into the discussion”
Correct – I did not introduce geometry, nor your context specific defintion of beleif.
“I pointed out that planar, spherical and hyperbolic geometries have some axioms that overlap and other axioms that contradict each other (namely, the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry and it’s alternatives in spherical and hyperbolic geometries),”
You seem to think that whatever I say must be intimately tied to whatever you have said. That is false.
“and YOU said “I am not debating hypothetical worlds,” ”
That is correct.
“when the fact is that planar, spherical and hyperbolic geometries all have applications in our very non-hypothetical world.”
That has nothing to do with what I said.
You have repeatedly and eroneously presumed that my general comments about broad scope remarks you have made, apply specifically to your narrows scope remarks as YOU choose.
You are the one fixated specifically on spherical and euclidean geometry.
I have avoided debating you on that – as it is not relevant to the argument.
I have avoided debating you on a number of points that I am near certain you are wrong on – because they are tangents,
and I have no desire to get into a long complex debate in a subject that you are more familiar with just because I am pretty sure you have made and error – when that entire digression is irrelevant to the initial debate.
“YOU are the person who introduced axioms into the discussion, but then claimed “Your entire digression on Axioms was nonsense – even if your claims were true – it is STILL nonsense. We are not discussing parallel universes, we are not discussing hypotheticals.””
“Non-Euclidean geometries are part of our very real universe and not a hypothetical.”
“You simply couldn’t admit it.”
Again I have specifically avoided anything beyond a cursory discussion of geometry with you.
That is your fixation – not mine.
“YOU are the one who claimed “You spherical geometry argument is equal nonsense. YOU introduced contexts other than reality,” when spherical geometry is very much a part of reality. Pilots use spherical geometry in navigating our globe, for example.”
Again you keep making false assumptions.
You have taken two independent assertions and pretended they are tied.
AGAIN – you are really bad at logic.
“Darren has removed the entire discussion”
Why do I need to go back to a cached copy of this –
Briefly I thought you might actually be intelligent.
But your reading and logical skills suck.
You equated “Your spherical geometry argument is equal nonsense.” with “YOU introduced contexts other than reality,”
So let me make it clear – these are independent remarks.
1) I have no interest in contexts other than reality.
The are many reasons for that. One is that they USUALLY have no application to reality, another is that anything that is true in reality is false in some unreal context, and anything that is false in reality is true in some unreal context”
2). Spherical geometry is a sub context of reality.
You presumed the two assertions were dependent.
To do so, you had to presume I am so stupid that I have no idea what spherical geometry is or that it is a sub context of reality or that it has applications to reality.
And in fact you have subsequently pummeled me – arguing pretty much exactly that.
But the error is yours – YOU made a false assumption.
I would say that everyone knows that spherical geometry is used for long distance navigation.
But there are certainly people on this blog who do not, and given the poor state of education today – probably alot.
““Of course there are real world applications of spherical geometry.”
Glad you can finally admit it. ”
Not “finally admitting it” – the ONLY thing I have said previously about spherical geometry is “Your spherical geometry argument is equal nonsense.”
You made a collection of false and stupid assumptions.
“It’s only one of your many false responses in the discussion, maybe you’ll admit some of your other mistakes.”
““That does not make spherical geometry relevant to the debate we were having.”
Sure it is. It’s totally relevant to YOUR mistaken claims about axioms, which is why I introduced different geometries into the discussion in the first place. You just can’t bring yourself to admit it.”
Do even you have any idea what you think you are refuting ?
Spherical geometry is a subset of reality. Things can be true of a subset that are false within the whole, Things can be false in the subset and true in the whole.
Therefore your claim that spherical geometry proves some error – is not a proof. Or as I said before – it is garbage.
While it is not exactly the same as trying to use a hypothetical world to prove or disprove something in the real world – it is pretty close.
And just to ice this – you seem to think that the fact that there are different axioms in different domains somehow disproves some claim of mine. That too is error.
Your claim regarding spherical geometry is now wrong on two counts.
But your big problem – which is increasingly obvious is that you keep jumping to assumptions.
This is near impossible to deal with – because it often takes several exchanges to figure out what false assumption you have made.
“LMAO. YOU introduced axioms into the discussion, saying “Mathemtics (and logic, and science) all rest on axioms – these are things that we know to be true – but can not prove,” and now you complain that I responded to a claim about math and axioms by focusing on how mathematicians define and view it.”
No. Please go back and read the SPECIFIC criticisms I have made.
I have attacked SPECIFIC arguments you have made – not every word you have uttered.
“You seem to think that whatever I say must be intimately tied to whatever you have said.”
You’re mistaken. I don’t think that.
“’the fact is that planar, spherical and hyperbolic geometries all have applications in our very non-hypothetical world.’ That has nothing to do with what I said.”
You are mistaken again. It absolutely has to do with your claim that there can’t be conflicting axiomatic systems, each of which apply to parts of the real world.
“You have repeatedly and eroneously presumed that my general comments about broad scope remarks you have made, apply specifically to your narrows scope remarks as YOU choose.”
If a claim is not true for subsets, then it is not generally true and needs to be narrowed. When I give you counterexamples, I’m pointing out that your claim isn’t true in a general sense.
“You are the one fixated specifically on spherical and euclidean geometry.”
Because they’re counterexamples to your false claims about axioms. Both spherical and Euclidean geometry have applications in the world. They have some axioms in common, and but the Parallel Postulate (axiom) of Euclidean geometry is FALSE in spherical geometry.
Can you admit this?
“’Non-Euclidean geometries are part of our very real universe and not a hypothetical.’ True.”
Great, we’re making headway. Can you admit that the axioms of non-Euclidean geometries conflict with the Parallel Postulate, and therefore the Parallel Postulate (an axiom) isn’t always true?
“YOU are the one who claimed ‘You spherical geometry argument is equal nonsense. YOU introduced contexts other than reality,’ when spherical geometry is very much a part of reality. Pilots use spherical geometry in navigating our globe, for example.” Again you keep making false assumptions. You have taken two independent assertions and pretended they are tied. … You equated “Your spherical geometry argument is equal nonsense.” with “YOU introduced contexts other than reality,”
No, I didn’t equate them. I assumed that they were tied in your argument, as you placed them together. Normally, if two claims are totally unrelated, people don’t place them together.
“the ONLY thing I have said previously about spherical geometry is ‘Your spherical geometry argument is equal nonsense.’”
Yet you’ve never quoted anything from me about spherical geometry and shown it to be false.
“You made a collection of false and stupid assumptions.”
Quote them, and show that they’re false. Proclaiming them to be false without evidence or even quoting what you’re referring to is worthless.
“Do even you have any idea what you think you are refuting ?”
“Spherical geometry is a subset of reality. Things can be true of a subset that are false within the whole, Things can be false in the subset and true in the whole.”
No, things CANNOT be false for the subset and true for the whole. If they are false for the subset, they are false for the whole, and to come up with a true claim, you either have to narrow your claim to only part of the whole (another subset) or you have to change your claim for the whole so that it’s true for all subsets.
The Parallel Postulate is NOT true for the whole of reality, because reality is not limited to Euclidean space.
“Therefore your claim that spherical geometry proves some error – is not a proof.”
It’s a disproof by counterexample. Disproofs by counterexample are often used in math to prove claims false. Your claim about axioms was false, and I proved it false by providing a counterexample.
“Or as I said before – it is garbage.”
That you say something doesn’t make your claim true.
“you seem to think that the fact that there are different axioms in different domains somehow disproves some claim of mine. That too is error.”
No, it’s not an error. You insisted that axioms are known to be true. The Parallel Postulate is an axiom. It is not true in non-Euclidean geometries, which are just as much a part of reality as Euclidean geometry. There is no single axiomatic system that describes all of reality. You denied that.
“You seem to think that whatever I say must be intimately tied to whatever you have said.”
You’re mistaken. I don’t think that.
Then don’t make arguments that assume that.
“You are mistaken again. It absolutely has to do with your claim that there can’t be conflicting axiomatic systems”
I did not say that. Newtonian physics is in conflict with Einsteinan physics – each of which apply to the real world.
We can use systems that are incomplete, in conflict with each other or reality – so long as we use them inside the domain in which they are valid.
““You have repeatedly and eroneously presumed that my general comments about broad scope remarks you have made, apply specifically to your narrows scope remarks as YOU choose.”
If a claim is not true for subsets, then it is not generally true and needs to be narrowed. When I give you counterexamples, I’m pointing out that your claim isn’t true in a general sense.”
Please re-read my statement and yours. You are off on an irrelevant tangent. You obviously are either misrepresenting or do not understand what I said. And what I said it clear.
““You are the one fixated specifically on spherical and euclidean geometry.”
Because they’re counterexamples to your false claims about axioms.”
No they are not. Spherical geometry is much like Newtonian geometry – it works only within a specific domain.
“Both spherical and Euclidean geometry have applications in the world.”
“They have some axioms in common”
“and but the Parallel Postulate (axiom) of Euclidean geometry is FALSE in spherical geometry.”
All of this is true within different systems of Physics too.
“Can you admit this?”
I have never denied it.
It does not refute any claim I have made.
“Great, we’re making headway.”
No we are not. The fundimental issue is that you are way off on an irrelevant tangent, and that you seem to think that different axiomatic schemes in domain specific geometries creat an actual conflict that refutes something.
If the axiomatic differences between different geometries created the conflict you claim they do – that would just prove that one or all of those geometries was FALSE. That is likely the case – that one or all of these geometries are NOT systems that accurately reflect ALL of reality.
In other words they are a reflection of the same problem as that of Newtonian physics – it works but ONLY within a specific domain – not reality.
“Can you admit that the axioms of non-Euclidean geometries conflict with the Parallel Postulate, and therefore the Parallel Postulate (an axiom) isn’t always true?”.
No they do not “conflict” They operate on different domains.
The argument you are making is complete nonsense. I made the early mistake of assuming that you might actually know something about Geometry and mathematics. While you clearly know alot about a little, your logic skills are incredibly poor.
In this instance you have a “hypothetical” mathematical system – lets assume spherical geometry” for the moment, and that systems has clear real world applications – so long as you constraint yourself to the domain in which that hypothetical system is valid.
What you DO NOT grasp is that like Newtonian physics – spherical geometry is domain constrained. IT DOES NOT provide a geometry for reality.
There is BTW no “conflict” with respect to the parallel postulate – because spherical surfaces are NOT planes.
There is no “conflict”. Even a line on a spherical surface is NOT the same as a line on a planar surface.
Both Spherical and planar geometry are likely FALSE with respect to all of reality as space is neither spherical nor planar.
But BOTH are valid within their domains.
You can not directly compare things outside their domains.
You noted subsets – Spherical Geometry is NOT a subset of Planar geometry. They litterally have entirely different spacial models.
The do not conflict. They do not apply to the same reality.
“spherical geometry is very much a part of reality.”
That is correct. It is a hypothetical mathemetics that has applications within ONE subset of reality.
It is not Reality. The fact that something has real world uses does not make it reality, nor does it even make it correct.
Newtonian Physics is unarguably WRONG. We know that with absolute certainty. Yet, we use it all the time every single day.
It is extremely useful – within the domain in which its errors are tiny.
We depend on it.
“No, I didn’t equate them.”
Of course you did. You can not claim that two things conflict in a meaningful way if they do not share the same domain.
” I assumed that they were tied in your argument,”
“When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. ”
Read what I write. Do not assume. While I am making comments on a blog and I do not typically add paragraphs of qualifications or exposition to everything I say – do you really want my posts to be far longer ? Blog comments are NOT complete metaphysical and epistemological arguments – if you want that – Read Robert Nozick “Anarchy, State, Utopia”. Nozick takes several hundred pages to make arguments that I make in a single statement.
“Normally, if two claims are totally unrelated, people don’t place them together.”
False, arguments are made of many assertions. Those assertions are obviously related – in that they are part of the whole argument.
But you do not get to make up how they are related just because they are both assertions in the same argument.
You should not be arguing advanced mathematics if you fail at reading comprehension.
“Yet you’ve never quoted anything from me about spherical geometry and shown it to be false.”
False and nonsense are not the same thing.
I have actually shown your geometry argument to be FALSE. Repeatedly. Spherical geometry does not “conflict” with planar geometry.
They can not conflict, they do not share the same domain.
This should be fairly trivial for you to understand.
“”You made a collection of false and stupid assumptions.”
Why ? I am not misrepresenting you. I am not misunderstanding you.
You have repeated the elements of your own argument, it is not unclear.
It is merely FALSE. OBVIOUSLY.
You have assumed that two hypothetical domain specific systems of geometry “conflict” because they do not share they same postulates.
They also do not share the same domains, and neither is compete with respect to reality.
They do not conflict.
You do not seem to understand what a conflict is.
Newtonian physics and relativistic physics CONFLICT. They do NOT produce the same answers within the same domain.
They have completely different axioms – that is NOT a conflict. The conflict is that they do not produce the same results for the same problem in the same domain.
Relativistic physcis MAY be wrong – but for now it appears to be correct. Newtonian physics is WRONG, but useful – because inside a domain that includes most human action until the late 20th century it produces results whose error is so small as to be inconsequential.
Euclidian and spherical geometry do not share the same domain. Further spherical geometry though useful is only applicable to a tiny subset of reality. A useful one but not a complete one. Euclidian geometry is applicable to a different subset of reality.
BOTH are hypothetical. They are not attempts to accurately map to all of reality. Newtonian and relativistic physics ARE attempts to fully articulate reality. They actually conflict and Newtonian is WRONG (but useful)
” and show that they’re false.”
Your core problem is a fundimental misuse and misunderstanding or fairly basic words.
Reality, Subset, domain, conflict, hypothetical, related,
Even such logic fundimental as what constitutes AND.
“Proclaiming them to be false”
I have not proclaimed them false.
They are false.
You have abused words, meaning and logic.
You have done so self evidentally.
We do not disagree on what you have said – you have quoted your premises and erroneous conclusions over and over.
Many of your premises are correct, but your arguments are non-sequiturs – “it does not follow”.
in otherwords they are not arguments.
Euclidian and spherical geometry do not “conflict” – absent an incorrect meaning to conflict.
I do not need to quote you – because we do not disagree on what you have said.
I do not need to “prove” anything – because your arguments are obvious logical error.
You have asserted false conclusions that your premises do not support.
The “evidence” is your own arguments – they are false. They are not valid logic.
““Do even you have any idea what you think you are refuting ?”
It is obvious that you do not.
“Spherical geometry is a subset of reality. Things can be true of a subset that are false within the whole, Things can be false in the subset and true in the whole.”
“No, things CANNOT be false for the subset and true for the whole.”
Of course they can. A line in spherical geometry and a line in euclidean geometry are not the same thing.
As YOU note – the axioms of spherical geometry are NOT the same as euclidian.
This is one of the problems you have in reasoning from hypothetical to reality.
Both spherical and euclidian geometry are hypothetical mathematics. they are NOT reality.
But they can be mapped to domains of reality. And within those domains they are useful.
You claim they do not share the same postulates – correct.
They also do not share the same defintions, or domain.
You can not reason – atleast not in the way that you have between them.
You claim that the absence of the parallel postulate in spherical geometer is a conflict – it is not.
It is a consequence of different domains. This should be obvious from the fact that fundamental words – like LINE do not have the same meaning.
“It’s a disproof by counterexample. Disproofs by counterexample are often used in math to prove claims false.”
All correct – WITHIN THE SAME DOMAIN. But you have jumped domains,
You have made a categorical error. As I noted – words do not mean the same thing between Spherical and Euclidean geometry,
“Your claim about axioms was false, and I proved it false by providing a counterexample.”
Your “proof” is not a proof, and you long ago lost any connection to my original argument.
“That you say something doesn’t make your claim true.”
that is correct.
“No, it’s not an error. You insisted that axioms are known to be true.”
That is litterally the defintion of Axiom.
n. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim.
n. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
You are literally trying to disprove the dictionary. Take it up with websters.
“The Parallel Postulate is an axiom. It is not true in non-Euclidean geometries, which are just as much a part of reality as Euclidean geometry.” They are hypothetical systems that are useful in subsets of reality.
They do not “conflict” anymore than clouds and elephants conflict. – both exist in reality, both even have overlaps. But they are not the same thing, nor does either encapsulate reality.
“There is no single axiomatic system that describes all of reality. You denied that.”
I have neither denied nor accepted that. It is a completely tangential debate.
I would note that the the objective of science is to find a single axiomatic system that describes all of reality.
That is not MY claim – that is core science. Whether that is possible is completely tangential to the debate we are having.
You are constantly running into problems because you torture the meaning of words.
“If a claim is not true for subsets, then it is not generally true and needs to be narrowed. When I give you counterexamples, I’m pointing out that your claim isn’t true in a general sense.”
You have made so many errors to this point it is barely worth continuing.
This entire debate should have ended before it began. As the core to your argument is to refute a defintion or axiom that is THE defintion of axiom – not MY definition.
I have no problem with your trying to challenge fundamental assumptions – but do not pretend when you do – that you are challenging a heterodox argument of mine.
““You are the one fixated specifically on spherical and euclidean geometry.”
Because they’re counterexamples to your false claims about axioms. ”
They are NOT and that has been obvious from the start.
“Both spherical and Euclidean geometry have applications in the world. They have some axioms in common, and but the Parallel Postulate (axiom) of Euclidean geometry is FALSE in spherical geometry.”
All true. Also all irrelevant to nearly all your arguments. Different systems in different domains do not conflict because they do not share identical axioms. That is tautologically true. You are making a category error.
“Can you admit this?”
You keep using stupid leftist language like this. You have stated a sequence of true premises – I do not need to “admit that”.
True is true.
If you do not wish to be compared to stalinists and maoists – do not talk like them. Do not use their language.
Regardless, your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
That should have been obvious.
But it it was not obvious from inspection, it should have been clear from the fact that your conclusion is a rejection of nearly all defintions of axiom. Not MY definition.
“Great, we’re making headway. Can you admit that the axioms of non-Euclidean geometries conflict”
NO! Systems that do not share the same domain can not be said to conflict.
You are absuing the would conflict.
This is far from the only error of logic and meaning that you have made, but it alone invalidates your entire argument.
“therefore the Parallel Postulate (an axiom) isn’t always true?”
Have ?I ever said that any axiom is true in every domain hypothetical or otherwise ?
You are arguing against claims that have not been made.
I would advise you to avoid metaphysical and epistemological arguments – until you know something about either.
I would further advise that if you wish to challenge the centuries old accepted meaning of words – that you are not debating me, but centuries of wisdom.
If you are going to try to disprove something by counter example – you should learn what a counter example is, and what a conflict is.
Counter examples are only valid inside the same domain.
Spherical geometry has no parallel postulate, Euclidean does.
That is one of many DIFFERENCES, it is not a conflict.
Fundamental terms like “line” do not mean the same thing in each domain.
This is not a conflict it is a difference.
You have gone off on an enormous tangent to attempt to disprove the dictionary meaning of axiom.
Many of your premises are correct, some are not.
But your basic logical skills are poor.
It is always wise to take a moment when you think you are disproving millenia of wisdom, and consider all the possible ways in which you could have erred.
Once in a blue moon someone successfully undermines something that has been accepted as true for millennia.
But it is not an everyday occurrence.
Exactly, knowledge is “justified true belief.” Knowledge has to be true because it is an oxymoron to say “false knowledge.” The important part is “justification.” There has to be a good and sufficient reason or evidence to be believe something; otherwise, it is a mere guess or conjecture.
Obviously, Trumpists will not accept and trust the evidence and reasoning established by our Intelligence agencies about Manafort colluding with a Russian intelligence agent. I do.
If and when Trump is put on trial for some state crime, I will accept the verdict either way because I believe in the system. Will any of you Trimpists commit beforehand to accept the verdict come what may? Or will you reserve the right to claim that the system is “fixed” or “rigged” should he be found guilty? I don’t know the outcome, but I do know that Trump will get a fair trial because I believe in the American criminal justice system.
Please do not claim that we agree on something when we do not.
Axioms are things that we know to be true that if they were false nothing would work. They are not proven true. But they ar emore than Believed to be true.
Axioms are a very small portion of knowledge.
Even equating Axioms with JTB – which you are misusing – You seem to want to ignore the fact that there is more to a JTB than beleif, still leaves you with the problem that All knowlege is not axioms.
You are just playing word games – BADLY.
If you want to get into hair splitting word games – the least you can do is get better at it.
“Axioms are things that we know to be true that if they were false nothing would work.”
Your claim “if they were false nothing would work” is FALSE. If a postulate is false, SOME things don’t work, but it simply isn’t true that “nothing would work.”
For example, the parallel postulate is an axiom (assumed true) in Euclidean geometry, but it is FALSE is non-Euclidean geometry, and BOTH Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries are part of the world. Without the parallel postulate, applications of non-Euclidean geometries still work. It’s only Euclidean geometry where it’s an essential axiom.
You are more mathematically ignorant than you recognize.
“Your claim “if they were false nothing would work” is FALSE. If a postulate is false, SOME things don’t work, but it simply isn’t true that “nothing would work.””
You are once again conflating abstract math with reality.
“You are more mathematically ignorant than you recognize.”
No, you are more ignorant of reality than you realize.
And you are incredibly self contradictory – and unaware of it.
You jump arround between domain specific mathematics, arguing that they are domain specific, and then trying to generalize outside the domain.
You are constantly confusing generalizations that can be made accross domains with those that can not.
Your the man with a hammer to whom everything looks like a nail.
It is not an oxymoron to say “false belief’ – therefore true is neither redundant nor optional.
You are not very good at logic.
Do you actually understand the philosophy web site you linked to ?
John, Jeff didn’t link to the Stanford discussion. I did. Jeff and I are different people.
YOU are not very good at logic.
You are also not very attentive. He made a comment about “false knowledge” (his phrase) not about “false belief” (your substitution). False beliefs are common. But “false knowledge” is a non sequitur, as a belief must be true (and justified) to be knowledge. If it’s false, then it’s not knowledge.
“John, Jeff didn’t link to the Stanford discussion. I did. Jeff and I are different people.”
Still not grasping that you do not get to make claims about identity so long as you post as anonymous.
“YOU are not very good at logic.”
And yet it is you who seems to think that you can post as anonymous and pick and choose when you have an identity or credibility.
Let me make this trivially simple for you.
So long as you post as anonymous – you are not entitled to criticize anyone for any assumptions that we make regarding your identity – not even self contradictory ones. If you wanted an identify – you were free to choose one.
If you want to constraint the assumptions others make about that identity – you are free to choose one. or several.
Anonymous is no one or anyone. Because it is impossible for the rest of us to know the truth of your identity – it is also impossible to prove any assumption wrong.
And please – no idiotic jumps into spherical geometry or Set theory.
“You are also not very attentive.”
False presumption – You, Jeff, others are free to choose their language – just as I am free to reject it and choose my own.
This is consistently getting YOU into trouble.
“YOU are not very good at logic.”
Please review your numerous errors above and in other posts and rethink that.
And I have ignored numerous other logic errors and false assumptions that you have made – because they are irrelevant tangents.
You also have this odd tendency to run 1000 miles away from the argument state something that is actually true, Pretend that I disagreed with you and declare victory.
“Anonymous is no one or anyone.”
John, you have pointed out that fact to anonymous many times. It is totally logical and understandable. Anonymous is unable to functionally utilize that point which is clearly obvious.
Some aspects of anonymous posting are not exactly logical.
One of the consequences is that the anonymous poster can NOT claim an identity or even credibly claim ownership of prior posts, or posts by others.
While those claims might be true – they are not proveable, and to even try to do so would destroy anonimity.
Conversely others can forgiveably equate anonymous with prior posts or even other posters – though I do not encourage that
because error is unproveable and connections are not refutable.
That is a double standard – it does not appear to be consistent.
but it is still correct.
I do not care that some post as anonymous.
But I will confront them with they attempt to wrap themselves int eh trappings of an actual identity.
You can not defame anonymous there is no identity to harm – though anonymous can defame others.
You can not claim offense or harm as anonymous – because there is no identity.
You can not claim credibility. The credibility of each anonymous post hinges on the 4 corners of the post and the starting point is zero credibility or possibly negative credibility as it must be assumed that an anonymous poster does NOT want their words connected to them. 3
“Obviously, Trumpists will not accept and trust the evidence and reasoning established by our Intelligence agencies about Manafort colluding with a Russian intelligence agent.”
Of course they will not. It is not evidence, We have spent 4 years learning that the entire mess was cooked up.
If every single thing you claim and every implication you are stretching were true – you would STILL fall far short of proof of collusion.
You KEEP forgeting that the US state department has already admitted that Kilmick was one of THEIR sources.
That is documented. The claim that he is also or in addition a russian agent is speculation.
There is todate no claim at all that Manafort knew that he was ANYONE’s agent.
You have nothing to demonstrate that Konstantin provided anything to actual russians. He certainly did not tell the state department.
You Treasury department document makes lots of claims that have long ago been debunked – those of you on the left have a problem with the truth. You can not let go when your claims have fallen apart.
You know that the Russians through Mueller for a loop – Mueller expected he could file charges and they would slink away to Russia.
They didn’t. Ultimately the charges were dropped for lack of evidence and Mueller was berated by the courts for making unsubstantiated allegations in public during a trial.
Biden has been bested by Putin over and over since the inauguration – Of Course Biden is seeking revenge through Treasury.
But Treasury does not investigate anything – and if we have learned anything from the last 4 years it is government agencies and their staff lie. Of course we knew that from long ago. This is not even specific to Trump. These people lie for power – ALWAYS.
It is possible that Treasury is lying – or just using debunked sources. It is possible they actually have assessments from the IC – ones like the Vaunted IC report claiming that Putin favored Trump – which turned out to be Steele Dossier predicated garbage that ignored the actual input from intelligence officers. The secretive nature of all this means we can not know precisely where the lie originated – and certainly congress is not going to look into it – atleast not until 2022. But we can know from DECADES of experience – that this nonsense is not trustworthy.
You do know that the DOJ/FBI hid investigations into Russian infiltration of US businesses from congress while the Uranium One deal was being negotiated – because that would tank the deal. Mueller was part of that.
I wish they things I was saying were “right wing conspiracy theories” – but they are not. If you bother to look hard enough – even NYT reported on much of this – though quietly.
You trust government – and that is your problem.
“The biggest lesson I learned from Vietnam is not to trust our own government statements. I had no idea until then that you could not rely on them. ”
J William Fulbright
Not going to happen. Going after Trump is a huge mistake – not only doess it look bad – but you do not seem to grasp that he will defend himself. If you wish to continue to keep hidden the malfeasance of the left and of government – it would be unwise to poke the bear.
“Will any of you Trimpists”
Not a trumpist.
And I do not commit before hand to accept the verdict of any jury on anything.
“Or will you reserve the right to claim that the system is “fixed” or “rigged” ”
I do not need to reserve anything – our government is corrupt – that is innarguable.
It does on occasion get things right – but not all that often.
If government can not get things right normally – why would I presume it would with Trump ?
Regardless, i have been here for the past 4 years – I have watched as Mueller and his henchmen pummeled innocent people until it forced them to make mistakes. And i have watched as the actual criminals those in government who lied and cheated and abused their power got away scott free. So you think I should trust the system ? Have you heard of Bruce Ivers ? Should have have trusted the system ?
What of Randy Weaver ? The FBI murdered his family. What of The Branch Davidians – Do you think it is OK for the federal government to murder near 100 people ?
Trump is not going to be tried for anything – and no one on the right gets a fair trial in this country – especially in DC.
You rant about Manafort – who had a judge who deprived him of his right to free speech and then locked him up for witness tampering – for seeking out favorable witnesses. That is your idea of a fair trial ?
Or do you think that the same Judge putting people who have already prejudged the defendant on facebook before the trial as Jury Foreman – that is your idea of a fair trial ?
And I can go on and on.
No I do not trust government – I am with our founders on that.
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
” I just hope that we can co-exist in this country without getting into a bloody fight because neither one of us is going to give in to the other otherwise.”
Jeff, let me deal with another flaw in your arguments. Is your above statement true? You hope not to get into a bloody fight? Let’s examine that claim.
Listening to what you have said or not said, I don’t believe that to be a true statement. What you might really be saying is that you won’t physically raise your hands to fight but you are more than happy to let others do that fighting in your place.
Before you object tell us what you said that could have encouraged BLM and Antifa actions when they were burning our cities. Tell us what you said to stop them. From there move onto other proxies such as FB, Twitter and all sorts of hoaxes and claims that turned out not to be true. How did you repent for your many errors?
Jeff, from what you write it sounds like you are more than willing to do the dirty work but not willing to do it yourself. Instead you will have others do the dirty work for you.
Meanwhile comrade jiffy you and your ilk sellout to chicoms for the filthy lucre….effectively backstabbing America. But then again it’s what your indoctrinated brand of American hater lives for.
It is my fervent hope that all the dreams and wishes you have for this country go unfulfilled.
Or maybe Turley will not comment because it is stupid fake news.
You have provided no source.
You have claimed this is from Treasury which is not any place that would have a clue regarding Russia.
Even if it actually came from CIA – it would not be trustworthy.
Frankly it is dubious – because if it were true it would not be made public.
If any US intelligence agency had the ability to determine that Russia received this information – it would be highly classified as it would expose sources and methods.
Putin will murder anyone he suspects of being a US spy.
If your idiotic claim was true – publicly reporting it will very likely finger the source in Russia, and that source is dead.
This is with near certainty more of the nonsense of the past 4 years – phony leaks.
Just today it was revealed by the Treasury Department that our intelligence agencies have determined that Kilimnik did provide that internal polling data to the Russian government:
The Treasury Dept?
Is revealing intel from the IC?
Is this rehashed propaganda from that phony Senate report, back in August 2020? (wait till you hear about President Trump hiring hookers to pee on a bed Obama slept in while staying in Russia, AND that Russia was paying a bounty to kill US troops. Your head will literally explode)
If this “direct pipeline from the campaign to Russian spies at a time when the Kremlin was engaged in a covert effort to sabotage the 2016 presidential election” is not considered “collusion” by Turley, then he is an abject liar.
The Mueller report was surprisingly succinct in their conclusion that no person on the Trump Campaign, Transitition, or Administration, or any American was colluding With Russia.
There is nothing I can say that will convince you that you are mistaken. All I can do is pity you.
Comrade jiffy ; Again there was no russki collusion , oh and for that matter as well there was no Russian bounty on US soldiers in Azzcrackazztan either. Both have no been thoroughly debunked. Yet blindly partisan apparatchik sloths like yourself refuse to see the forest for the trees. Nothing new there as you goose step with the zeig heil demoratzi party.
How many times does this garbage have to be DEBUNKED.
Konstantin Kilimnik is allegedly a russian operative. He is not a known russian operative, and more importantly Manafort did not know he was a russian operative. Finally Kilimnick IS a state department asset.
If this is your idea of collusion – you are a complete idiot.
As to your “just today” claim – please provide a source ?
Further Why are we supposed to trust the same people who sold us the collusion delusion in the first place ?
And why would anyone beleive that the US treasury department has a clue what the Russians received from ANYONE ?
I would not trust the CIA or FBI on this – if we have learned nothing in the past 4 years it is that the US intelligence agencies are corrupt, and lie constantly – especially those having anything to do with Russia.
Next you posit some stupendous value to Trump internal polling data.
If this data was so incredibly useful – why wouldn’t Trump put millions into using it ?
This whole “Russia influenced the election” nonsense – was from day one a bat $hit crazy claim.
The Russian FB adds were stupid, persuaded no one, mostly ran after the election, and were approximately evenly divided between pro Trump and pro Clinton.
Why exactly is it that you think the Trump campaign went to enormous risk to deliver to someone they did not know was a russian agent – and who was a US state depeartment agent polling data that there is no evidence was used to push out FB adds that are embarrasingly stupid ?
Is this the quality of thought of those on the left ?
The entire Russian investment in the US election was about 10,000.
But lets say it was $1M. Do you think Trump could not have found $1M in money from US donors to place really good adds ?
Are you really this stupid ?
You have not provided evidence of collusion – you have provided evidence of the complete and utter stupidity of those claiming collusion.
Turley is obviously a hypocrite – because he will not post on your completely bat $hit crazy theory.
Polling Data does NOT show what the Trump strategy IS. It is a small part of what a campaign uses to decide their strategy.
You seem to think that the Russians are capable of doing a Vulcan mind meld with a stack of paper.
I would further note that Manafort was part of the Trump campaign for 4 weeks in June.
The Election was in November. The FB adds mostly did not run till after the election.
“Turley is obviously a hypocrite …”
Well, at least we can agree on that point! That’s a start!
Let’s see if we can agree on one more thing- I’ll admit that Biden is likely suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer’s IF AND ONLY IF you will concede that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar. Agreed?
Jeff, how can one find you credible when you take statements out of context that you are replying to. Anyone reading the arguments can obviously see you do not care about the truth.
““>>Turley is obviously a hypocrite …”
>Well, at least we can agree on that point! That’s a start!”
The complete statement was: “Turley is obviously a hypocrite – because he will not post on your completely bat $hit crazy theory.”
People with sub-average intelligence can see the obvious lie by omission yet you lie by omission without any thought about your reputation.
“Jeff, … you lie by omission without any thought about your reputation.”
As do you, Allan S(tupid) Meyer.
As does your pal John.
As does your pal Olly.
As does your pal mespo.
If it concerns you, work on your own behavior.
The Fighting Gerbil loves to fight but should really get a better pair of dentures. Anonymous the Stupid, do you have anything intelligent to say?
Then you would be able to provide examples.
Otherwise you are again making false claims of moral failure that redound on you.
Read the FULL quote ?
I know that those on the left are incapable of understanding sarcasm – not even when it slaps them in the face.
“Let’s see if we can agree on one more thing- I’ll admit that Biden is likely suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer’s”
The election is over. That is mostly irrelevant at this point – except that YOU choose to vote for him.
“IF AND ONLY IF”
Very bizarre – you seem to think that we negotiate facts ?
I strongly suspect that Biden’s mental health is failing – and it has been for more than a year.
I doubt he is suffering from Alzheimers. If he is it is not early.
Regardless, Biden’s “diagnosis” is a matter of debate, his declining mental capacity is not.
Nor is the FACT that no intelligent person would place him in a position of trust or give him power under the circumstances.
“you will concede that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar. Agreed?”
Again – facts are not a matter of negotiation. If something is a fact – you can prove it.
It is trivial to prove that Biden lied several times in the debates as an example.
What is it that you think that trump has lied about ?
So far the overwhelming majority of accusations that Trump has lied have backfired on those making the accusation.
But you are perfectly free to try.
Regardless, when you make a moral accusation about another person – the burden of proof is on you.
The fact that you make moral accusations about others – without backing them up is why I do not trust you.
“What is it that you think that trump has lied about ?”
Very droll. When I look back on my life, one of my regrets will be wasting my precious time arguing with people like you. I can stand brute force force, but I can’t tolerate brute reason because it hits below the intellect. Let’s just agree to disagree and give each other a wide berth.
You made a claim – a claim of moral failure by another person.
I asked you to provide evidence.
Instead you respond with nonsense – you run away from the claim you made and start and idiotic diatribe attacking me and spraying absolute nonsense.
This is simple Jeff – If you accuse someone else of lying and you do not justify your claim – the moral failure – the LIE is yours.
There is no shimmying arround that.
“Thous shalt not bear false witness.” A simple moral imperative.
The system of justice that you have so much trust in does not work if nearly all people do not follow that.
When you say someone lied – and fail to demonstrate that – you are bearing false witness. You are not only lying, but you are telling one of the more serious lies.
I am not surprised that in response you jump to read herrings, straw men and ad hominem.
But this is simple – a moral person does not make false moral accusations of others.
It is not like that is a hard precept to follow.
If you make a moral accusation – you are expected to prove it.
Because moral accusations are one of few true binaries.
You are either right or you are immoral.
So which is it Jeff ?
I would note – that while this discussion started about Trump – because that is where you decided to make your first accusation of moral failure to me. This debate is not about Trump – it is about your morality. It is about the fact that you fling moral accusations like rain – without thought. Without any consideration for whether they are actually true.
on those blog – and probably from you, every day we hear those on the left ranting
as if it is perfectly ok to lob moral hand grenades at anyone you disagree with.
It is not – it is immoral.
If you do it – as you have done – you are immoral.
We rightly shun people who use the N word.
Making a false moral accusation is WORSE.
No addressing your idiotic attempt to distract everyone from the fact that you made an accusation of moral failure that you will not back up
This is not at all droll, there is no joke here, this is deadly serious. YOU made it serious. You made the moral accusation.
And again this is not about Trump – that is merely where you chose to jump onto a land mine. No one pushed you.
“When I look back on my life, one of my regrets will be wasting my precious time arguing with people like you.”
Then don’t – you make your own choices.
Regardless, this is not about me – you keep trying to sell that.
I did not push you into anything.
You jumped onto a moral landmine with your eyes open.
“I can stand brute force force” – you have made that clear – you not only can stand it, your perfectly willing to impose it one others without justification.
“but I can’t tolerate brute reason”
Adjectives add color – they do not alter logic.
The only difference between “I can not stand brute reason” and “I can not stand reason” is color – feelings, not actual logic.
Regardless, this is not an argument.
“because it hits below the intellect.”
There is no such thing.
But using your own rhetorical flourish – “Brute reason” is not hitting below the intellectual belt – it is hitting you over the head – because you are thick and can not deal with facts logic reason – except in their most simple blunt forms.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness.” – that would be You, Jeff.
“Let’s just agree to disagree and give each other a wide berth.”
You are not entitled to keep making false moral accusations without consequences
We are not debating the shade of blue of a car or the taste of a grape, or the feeling of being loved.
We are debating your accusations of moral failure against others.
There is no “agree to disagree”
You walked eyes wide open into a binary – your right or your wrong – no more correctly your evil or your not.
No one forced you there.
You trapped yourself.
I make it a point to confront people who make unsupported moral accusations of others with the immorality of their conduct.
Because it is important. Because if there is any hope of getting along without violence, the first necescary step is to quit lobbing moral hand grenades.
It is important to confront actual immorality when we encounter it.
It is even more important to be right when we do. It is a serious moral failure – it is evil to falsely accuse another of moral failure.
And yet you do.
And no – I am not “agreeing to disagree”
I would really like to meet you in person. You fascinate me. I have never encountered anyone quite like you. Either I’m crazy or you’r crazy! You don’t by chance live in the Bay Area do you? I’ll buy lunch!
I would not mind meeting you. Most people do better together in person. The internet is structured to encourage verbal brutality.
That is both good and bad.
But I live in amish country. I have not been to the bay area since I returned from China with my daughter 21 years ago.
Somehow this was posted unintentionally as anonymous.
While I have no issue with anonymous posts – they do come with consequences.
Regardless, the above post was by John Say.
jbsay AT thebrokenwindow DOT net
Do any libertarians at all exist in the bay area ?
Jeff. I am not all that unusual.
I would suggest that the bay area world you live in colors your perspective and does not offer you a clear view of conservatives libertarians and all those who not on the left.
I would note that though I tend to write as if the left is homogeous – I am aware it is not. But it is very nearly unified by the misperception that political majorities are free to do whatever they please to the rest of us. There are some disjunctures in that some real liberals such as Turley sometimes grasp that actual rights exist and can not easily be infringed on.
I would further note that the immoral majoritarian tendency is not unique to the left. The left is just the current biggest threat.
I agree that the anonymity of the Internet is the reason there is so much incivility. If I had a forum, I would demand that all members be identified by their correct name. You, John Say, are probably a religious man; I’m not. Accordingly, we have fundamentally different world views, e.g., I don’t believe in god-given Natural Rights. I don’t think there is a way to bridge that philosophical divide. I guess we just have to agree to disagree, as I have said, and figure out how to share a country.
As for Turley, this blog is nothing more than a commercial endeavor. Since he does not engage in discussion, you cannot really learn where he stands on issues. When it comes to the First Amendment, he simply repeats the standard adage: “the solution for bad speech is good speech.” He is not available to be questioned as to the limits of this principle and the circumstances where it fails. It’s a one-way street- he lectures, you listen. There is no dialectic.
” I don’t believe in god-given Natural Rights.”
Jeff, ridding ourselves of religion and politics, I have a simple question. Do you believe in Natural Rights? Do Natural Rights exist? Where do they come from? Are we born with them? Do they not exist except by our own demands?
Do you think Natural Rights should exist?
I do not know what you mean by a religious man.
Do I attend church ? No. Do I pray ? No.
Am I am atheist ? No.
I have no interest in religion personally.
I conduct my life morally – because that is the best way to live.
You do not need god to come up with natural rights.
You can start with Free will and get yourself all the way to Locke – as well as Adam Smith.
No need for a god.
And if you think you can reject free will – that too has consequences.
Every foundational choice you make about the fundimentals of humanity starts a tree.
You can not mix and match bits and peices from each tree.
Free will is foundational – natural rights are a consequence.
Regardless, you do not accept natural rights – fine.
Eliminating natural rights has consequences.
Probably the best defense of free speech ever made was by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty.
I would note that you can get to pretty much the same places as natural rights takes you though utiliarianism.
I am not personally utilitarian. But I often make utilitarian arguments.
Comments are closed.