Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

An Examination Of Trump.


  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#18 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1526 posts

Posted 20 January 2019 - 02:00 AM

As Trump gained the republican nomination, without being beholden to anybody, it is natural to expect that those who previously had vested interests in the nominations of all of the other candidates who became US presidents from either side since the 70's, might feel a bit miffed.

 

It just begs the question, why do those people, who would never really have benefited from their president being beholden to one group or the other (and didn't actually vote for Trump themselves as a result), feel so miffed when they haven't really lost anything anyway?

 

 



#19 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2701 posts

Posted 20 January 2019 - 02:28 AM

Gahd, his Charlottsville comments are an example of being racist....(snip snip)
Yeah, it is the words he uses and defending neo-nazis in Charlottesville and when questioned about re-defending them is enough to brand him racist. And your comment about "that is not race" well humans have only one race anyway in the proper scientific definition...

You mean in relation to August 2017, year and a bit ago?
Which ones exactly? Care to be a little more precise and lucid? Preferably with the included context...
AFAIK the only defense was in relation to Free Speach. And he CONDEMNED BOTH/ALL SIDES for "hatred, bigotry, and violence"

That view seems balanced and correct to me. ANTIFA is not a saintly organisation by any means...



#20 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:22 AM

Gahd, nothing about free speech here:
https://www.npr.org/...anged-for-trump

 

And it has all the context you wanted.

I refuse to call the "Antifa" by that name, they are more like a black bloc movement. Who said I think they are saints? I do see where they come from, but violence (even if only material) never solves any problem...During the G8 in Geneva (it was in France, but just on the other side of the lake of Geneva, so all big demonstrations were there), I was with a group who went between police and the black bloc to calm things down...(we mangaed to save a petrol station btw:-) and stop escalation in a few places)



#21 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2701 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 12:27 AM

Gahd, nothing about free speech here:
https://www.npr.org/...anged-for-trump
 
And it has all the context you wanted.

I refuse to call the "Antifa" by that name, they are more like a black bloc movement. Who said I think they are saints? I do see where they come from, but violence (even if only material) never solves any problem...During the G8 in Geneva (it was in France, but just on the other side of the lake of Geneva, so all big demonstrations were there), I was with a group who went between police and the black bloc to calm things down...(we mangaed to save a petrol station btw:-) and stop escalation in a few places)

So, literally nothing showing him to be a racist, a few quotes that when taken out of context can possibly (though extreme dissection) seem to hint at the idea that he might agree with some people (who might be extremist) on some points(which are not he extremist ones), and an overall attempt to say "calm down and be rational" to people (who then did the exact opposite)?

There's ONE inline complete tweet there man, and the rest is quotes  NOT IN CONTEXT with no links to where they came from. it takes digging though several other articles to get at the ones they refrence, and they seem to be ones like THIS. How does that equate with this:
 

Gahd, his Charlottsville comments are an example of being racist....(snip snip)
Yeah, it is the words he uses and defending neo-nazis in Charlottesville and when questioned about re-defending them is enough to brand him racist. And your comment about "that is not race" well humans have only one race anyway in the proper scientific definition...

I cannot for the life of me see how you make that connection. It reeks of misinformation being internalized and regurgitated.

Scale down the argument to your own home: You leave a window open, someone climbs though and sets up a tent next to the window, and then starts inviting their friends over. Is that breaking an entering(illegal immigration), or is it "irregular migration" and that tented area is now theirs?

 

Scale down #2: 2 people argue in your home, both of them get nasty and overly emotional. BOTH of them start being agressive beyond words and physically fighting. They both break your dishes and whatnot in their scuffle with each other in your home. Are they BOTH assholes for breaking your stuff in their fight, and for fighting in the first place, or is it just ONE of them?


Edited by GAHD, 22 January 2019 - 12:55 AM.
() for clarification, scale down for clarification, i hope


#22 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 04:39 AM

You know Gahd, I hope you are right. But my gut-feeling tells me not. I m not able to give you a proof you would like it seems. I do not think the link I gave you is out of context but if you think so...just note  on the link I gave you also have this follwoing tweet from him :
Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!

 

People looking for a better life do not infest a country...

Scale down#1: did they ask for asylum or want to ask for asylum in my garden?
Scaledown#2: proper scale down would be: 2 fight and break stuff and then a friend of one of the two comes and kills a family member of mine because he supports one of the guys and is pissed with the other. Then both fighting guys are assholes, but the third one is a killer.



#23 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2701 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 08:25 AM

You know Gahd, I hope you are right. But my gut-feeling tells me not. I m not able to give you a proof you would like it seems. I do not think the link I gave you is out of context but if you think so...just note  on the link I gave you also have this follwoing tweet from him :
Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!

 

People looking for a better life do not infest a country...

Scale down#1: did they ask for asylum or want to ask for asylum in my garden?
Scaledown#2: proper scale down would be: 2 fight and break stuff and then a friend of one of the two comes and kills a family member of mine because he supports one of the guys and is pissed with the other. Then both fighting guys are assholes, but the third one is a killer.

I'm just making a point, one that I think you are begrudgingly agreeing with: There's no evidence to support the slander. And people LOVE to have one monolithic thing to focus hatred and frustration on. Few years ago it was Obama for some (Who said and DID the exact same thing regarding illegal immigrants and their dangers!), few years before that it was Bush Jr (who again, said and did the SAME THINGS), Clinton, etc... Sometimes it's an ambiguous thing like "immigrants", sometimes it's less ambiguous like "smugglers" "human trafficers" "illegal immigrants."

#1 they came in though your unlocked window, and just set up camp. You have NO IDEA who they are, they are just there. You seriously going to tell me your reaction isn't going to be a guarded one, and wonder who the hell they are and what they're doing in your house? You seriously going to have "do they want asylum" as the first thing though your mind when you turn the corner on someone "irregularly entering" your house? Think about that, seriously. THEN scale it up.
#2 You see my point I think. That's Trump's big tweet crime for Charlottsville: ALL violent sides are wrong, shame on you!
-You just commited that same "racist crime" in your response, IF it is indeed such a thing. I don't think it is. I think it's rational.



#24 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 22 January 2019 - 06:02 PM

With regard to Charlottesville, I recall seeing a group interviewed shortly after the incident.  I've forgotten what they called themselves, but they basically came to support free speech and oppose the tyrannical attempt to impose political correctness on everyone by tearing down historical statues.  They were in no way associated with the neo-nazis, and were not engaging in bigoted chants.

 

There were blacks among their members.  They were, they claimed, viciously attacked by antifa while the cops merely watched.  Not everyone at the protest scene was a nazi, and there were, in fact, "good people" on both sides, as Trump claimed.


Edited by Moronium, 22 January 2019 - 06:03 PM.

  • GAHD likes this

#25 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 28 January 2019 - 05:04 AM

Gahd, your #1 does not hold, scaling down it should be: I have signed a pact that people can come and seek asylum. Also the issue is: why do they enter the window and set up camp and not knock on the door? Because they know they will be rejected without being able to apply for anything. And yeah a guarded reaction is there they are called asylum-centers (in your scale down, a room where they can come and go). In general ask yourself why they enter irregularly.

Where my response to #2 is racist? And no I do not get your point, the killer is not on the same level as the fighting guys, Trump set them all on the same level.



#26 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2701 posts

Posted 28 January 2019 - 02:17 PM

Gahd, your #1 does not hold, scaling down it should be: I have signed a pact that people can come and seek asylum. Also the issue is: why do they enter the window and set up camp and not knock on the door? Because they know they will be rejected without being able to apply for anything. And yeah a guarded reaction is there they are called asylum-centers (in your scale down, a room where they can come and go). In general ask yourself why they enter irregularly.
 

Nope, now you're upscaling and including weird things that don't apply to the trump scenario. You seem to be engaging in deflection and other cognitive dissonance behaviours. Is it really so important that you justify a dislike of a man that you need to do that?

To be clear I was referring to Illegal immigrants to the USA, not to the UN migration pact (which I also disagree with for different reasons, but that's outside of the scope of this discussion.) And yes, in general ask yourself WHY they enter irregularly(ILLEGALLY not following the established methods of immigration every other individual had to go though)? If they are willing to break the laws BEFORE asylum what makes you think they will stick to them AFTER? That's called precedence and it's an integral part of law both European and American; previous instances of law breaking show that the individual is NOT the kind to follow laws and is likely to break them at every selfish turn. That's NOT the kind of individual I can see any sane citizen saying they want to live next to.

I was scaling down that from a country and thousands of KM border, to a simple house. You need to alter that because you are thinking in EU terms I think? Even EU has people arguing those terms so I think you should examine the arguments from a rational perspective instead of an appeal to emotion as you seem to have been doing. Plenty of countries are pointing out that if these people want to live in freedom they should MAKE THEIR OWN COUNTRY FREE rather than fleeing to other countries and being a burden...but again that's a digression brought upon by over complicationg something. Your house. They didn't knock and be asked to be let in, they went in though your window and and are not respecting your property. Whatever the motivations the ACTIONS are what's in play here. You have a door, you have a doorbell, they are capeable of knocking, they are capable of talking to you when you answer, they CHOSE to use the window instead.
 
Freedom is like respect: you should not expect others to give it to you without proving you are worthy of it. The other side of that coin is that incarceration is like disrespect; it is likewise earned by actions.
 

Where my response to #2 is racist? And no I do not get your point, the killer is not on the same level as the fighting guys, Trump set them all on the same level.

It's not racist, but you used THAT EXAMPLE from trmp, as well as related ones to "prove trump is racist."  We agree the proof is invalid. You should think long and hard about how your belief that is against the evidence came into being. That is what I was getting at a few posts up saying it "reeks of misinformation being internalized and regurgitated." You seem to be taking things from unrelated sources at face value just because they confirm/support a personal dislike/jealousy.
It seems to be an outgrown of schadenfreude.

Let's be clear here. There is PLENTY about trump to dislike, but there is just as much if not more to admire. He is an individual, and should like all individuals be judged on his own actions not on rumor and hearsay.



#27 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 05:11 AM

But I do judge him on actions, but then you say I take the actions out of context...

Did you ever date a girl or guy who cheated on their ex? Since she did it once before you what makes you think she will not after?

The answer to your version or mine is the same: desperation or something wrong in the former situation (be it not enough love/sex/attention/toomanyfights/insecurity for the date poverty/oppression/insecurity/war for the so called "illegals").

Plenty of countries are pointing out that if these people want to live in freedom they should MAKE THEIR OWN COUNTRY FREE rather than fleeing to other countries and being a burden...


Please tell me how to make Syria free? Or Afghanistan? Or CAR? Or DRC? Or...? You get my point. Also people become a burden only if the system in the destination country is fucked up...it is not the people, it is the fact that they do not have options or maybe do not know the options (again implying fucked up system).


Also for some reason poverty is not a reason for asylum (at least in Switzerland and I guess EU and US too), that is something I never got. There are always this stupid arguments that they brought it on themselves...it is us in the west exploiting the rest of the world and when the exploited want help we either let them perish in the mediterranean or want to build a f****ing wall. And why are we responsible? First all the colonialisation, when that finished we just use industrial exploitation (=use cheap underpaid labor and the gains go to the west) and the World bank sends help we want interest on it (that is not help but is creating dependency). So yeah, either we let them all in or we actually start to help for real....

#28 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2701 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 06:38 AM


But I do judge him on actions, but then you say I take the actions out of context...

I'm fairly certain I've shown you are judging him based on HEARSAY, hearsay that you can't find proof for that has been repeated to you enough times that you seem to take it as truth. The worrisome thing is that it's very obvious that you don't realize you are being pavlovian programmed to believe the lie. It's just downright libel to call someone racist when you cannot point to any actual evidence. Especially when You Yourself make the same kind of statements that you said were "proof of racism" in others. Seriously. Take a couple deep breaths, focus, re-read. I've been open and asked for proff, please be open when you look back on that very same "proof" to see just how much you are being manipulated. :)
 

Did you ever date a girl or guy who cheated on their ex? Since she did it once before you what makes you think she will not after?

The answer to your version or mine is the same: desperation or something wrong in the former situation (be it not enough love/sex/attention/toomanyfights/insecurity for the date poverty/oppression/insecurity/war for the so called "illegals").

Please tell me how to make Syria free? Or Afghanistan? Or CAR? Or DRC? Or...? You get my point. Also people become a burden only if the system in the destination country is fucked up...it is not the people, it is the fact that they do not have options or maybe do not know the options (again implying fucked up system).

Edit: I could never trust them. That simple. Actions. Show. Character.

Have the...5 million... people who ran away run back with weapons and take their own land back? Same to Af. Basically, have them do what the French, germans, USA, and all the leading western civilizations did: clean up their own mess. You can even see the same in Eastern civilizations.

Keep in mind you've had to MOVE THE GOALPOSTS three times now. That might be an indicator that you yourself don't hold your own argument on very solid ground. You really should take a half hour to put some effort into some concrete reasoning.

Still, I thought this was about Trump; how HIS wall to stop south/central American illegals is racist, how he tweets racism, etc... Gotta try to keep it on the rails. Not sure why you're bringing in the repeat of the middle eastern human waves we've seen predating the Byzantine Empire as some sort of digression. The point is that people who are avoiding the established methods are a burden. You might be offended by that term, but take it by it's dictionary definition and actually think if it's true. The truth doesn't care about your feelings, and you should recognize it even if it's distasteful.
 

Also for some reason poverty is not a reason for asylum (at least in Switzerland and I guess EU and US too), that is something I never got. There are always this stupid arguments that they brought it on themselves...it is us in the west exploiting the rest of the world and when the exploited want help we either let them perish in the mediterranean or want to build a f****ing wall. And why are we responsible? First all the colonialisation, when that finished we just use industrial exploitation (=use cheap underpaid labor and the gains go to the west) and the World bank sends help we want interest on it (that is not help but is creating dependency). So yeah, either we let them all in or we actually start to help for real....

Because it's better to have them fix their own problems and become a functional society we can trade with. The idea is that they should fix their own problems. This is why there is foreign aid. There's plenty of poverty to go around. The only rational chain of help is self first(so you have excess) -> family(so you as a group have excess) -> friends(excess, group, common goals) -> neighbors (excess, group, common area) ->country (excess, group, common area, infrastructure)-> others(excess, trade, common goals).

That chain is the only rational one because of many factors, but mainly effectiveness and infrastructure ones. It's a bootstrap paradox that isn't a paradox. I don't see how anyone can think otherwise since literally every effective society in history has followed those standards. I challenge you to get ready for a day, and then litterally hand away EVERYTHING on your person one thing at a time to every person you meet. Once you are naked, no shoes, no money, and have "helped" everyone else to the point of your own destitution; THEN think of how you are able to "help" anyone the next day. This is where emotional appeals beyond rational thought considering actual values lead: self ruin.
 


Edited by GAHD, 29 January 2019 - 06:43 AM.


#29 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 05:36 AM

So to clarify, my news I get them from bbc.com, not some facebook stuff leading to the illusory_truth. I do believe bbc to be a reliable source of news and in this case of the tweets etc. of Trump.

Ok, I admit that I have no proof he is racist in the way you want and maybe he even isn't. But as I said in an earlier post, of course there is no such proof, he is too smart for that. About being manipulated: who isn't? Anyway my dislike of him is the sum of all things he does/tweets/says...


Edit: I could never trust them. That simple. Actions. Show. Character.

Ok this is a thing where we just have to disagree, I try to understand people (not implying that I condone their actions) and then decide whether I trust them.


You say I moved the goalpost: not really it is in the discussion of illeagl immigrants and your previous reply about that they should clean up their own mess --> so relates to the boarder wall;).

The point is that people who are avoiding the established methods are a burden. You might be offended by that term, but take it by it's dictionary definition and actually think if it's true. The truth doesn't care about your feelings, and you should recognize it even if it's distasteful.


What are you referring to with "established methods"? I see what you mean though with being a burden, but they are that only until the system integrated them in the worklife.


Ok this now you can say is a digression from the original post:
Your rational chain of help make sense exactly like comunism does: without the human factor-->people want more. The real chain is more like:
self first(so you have excess) ->self first(so you have more excess) ->self first(so you have even more excess) -> family(so you as a group have excess) --> [repeat family a few times]-> friends(excess, group, common goals) -> repeat-> neighbors (excess, group, common area) ->repeat-->country (excess, group, common area, infrastructure) -> repeat-> others(excess, trade, common goals), but maaking sure we keep our excess^100.
Eventually we got so used to have waaay more than we need thaat it becomes our new normal and if in the process we exploit the rest of the world we see it just as normal and say stuff like "hei, we fixed our problems on our own why don't they fix theirs on their own?" and forget all the exploitation which got us here. And when they do stuff like we did in the early industrialization era (eg. child-labour) we go on and play the angels and say how wrong it is forgetting that we did it too (nb.: not a defense of child-labour, but to show that the same way we did it is not gonna work).
I see your point with giving away everything: but our new normal in the west consist of a way too high standard of living (too high because of the cost the rest of the world has to pay, eg. see cobalt etc for our smartphones and electric cars), so yeah it should either go down (remember our grandparents had meat once a week if at all) or we find a way to keep it at this level but with a better conscience. Taking the human factor, of course only the latter is a realistic option.

 

#30 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2701 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 09:06 AM

 

So to clarify, my news I get them from bbc.com, not some facebook stuff....Anyway my dislike of him is the sum of all things he does/tweets/says...
 

Just to be clear: You do not read the original text from the original source. You read/hear about the source and opinions on the source from a third party, repeatedly. Correct? I'm reminded of a fairly recent Dr. Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman here. I think watching that and thinking back to this context might make a better mental link with what I'm saying re: perceptions about when taken out of context.

 

 

 

Ok this is a thing where we just have to disagree, I try to understand people (not implying that I condone their actions) and then decide whether I trust them.

You say I moved the goalpost: not really it is in the discussion of illeagl immigrants and your previous reply about that they should clean up their own mess --> so relates to the boarder wall;).
 

One followed the other though, You've needed to continuously expand scope and keep throwing on more and more appeals to emotion to try and outweigh the cold logic and law, effectively moving the goalposts. I think I've been trying to do the opposite: reduce scope to simplify things to a component level as much as is possible and show judgement process from the component to maintain case invariance.

Immigration : Country->single house, Illegal/immigrants->trespassers though the window,  standard immigration -> The front door.
Charlottsville : Pro/anti history revisionism  -> two people arguing/fighting, city -> house, the "damning racist tweet" -> "Who's the asshole?"

I've only very recently made a "clean up their own mess" talking point, so what about the 3 before that? Linear chain of event man, you can read back though them if you like. :)
 

 

 

What are you referring to with "established methods"? I see what you mean though with being a burden, but they are that only until the system integrated them in the worklife.

Standard immigration and refugee practice, those are established methods. Those methods have been put in place and refined to have the maximum BURDEN let though without being "the straw that breaks the camel's back." Let me spell out a couple of the important ones:
-There is only so much language education available. Established methods test immigrants/refugess and trains them to be able to communicate. Any more than capacity and you end up with people who cannot function in society. The ones who already know get let though faster, benefits of self education.
-There is only so much law education available. Established methods test immigrants/refugess and trains them to understand common law and history of that law. Any more than capacity and you end up with people who think it's ok to cut the hand off someone who eats a grape before buying the bunch, or that a house is yours if you kill the current owners and set up camp. (in extreme, but quite realistic examples)
-Useful skills are regulated, any more than testing capacity and you end up with people who know electrical engineering who can't get a job doing it cause they're not acredited. Inversely, you can end up with someone who "Is electrician back in Iraq" but doesn't know colour code and dangerously mis-wires an apartment block with "live neutrals".
-Are they criminals escaping prosecution? Probably a good idea to check that.
-Where are they going to live? Will they be homeless and on the street in weather that can kill them? Will they have to hunt and cook stray cats and mice to eat?

 

There's a capacity to these things, it's generally based off of the country's excess. There are systems to regulate it (The "front door") and if they bypass those systems (The window) not only did they screw over at least 1 other person who is using the front door, but they create more broad issues beyond that.
 

 

 

Ok this now you can say is a digression from the original post:
Your rational chain of help make sense exactly like comunism does: without the human factor-->people want more. The real chain is more like:
self first(so you have excess) ->self first(so you have more excess) ->self first(so you have even more excess) -> family(so you as a group have excess) --> [repeat family a few times]-> friends(excess, group, common goals) -> repeat-> neighbors (excess, group, common area) ->repeat-->country (excess, group, common area, infrastructure) -> repeat-> others(excess, trade, common goals), but maaking sure we keep our excess^100.
Eventually we got so used to have waaay more than we need thaat it becomes our new normal and if in the process we exploit the rest of the world we see it just as normal and say stuff like "hei, we fixed our problems on our own why don't they fix theirs on their own?" and forget all the exploitation which got us here. And when they do stuff like we did in the early industrialization era (eg. child-labour) we go on and play the angels and say how wrong it is forgetting that we did it too (nb.: not a defense of child-labour, but to show that the same way we did it is not gonna work).
I see your point with giving away everything: but our new normal in the west consist of a way too high standard of living (too high because of the cost the rest of the world has to pay, eg. see cobalt etc for our smartphones and electric cars), so yeah it should either go down (remember our grandparents had meat once a week if at all) or we find a way to keep it at this level but with a better conscience. Taking the human factor, of course only the latter is a realistic option.

 

 

 

Looking at thread title...yup, bit of a digression. Tangentially related because people use boarder control and trade policy to say he's a racist and all in all bad character though.

My grandparents had more meat and eggs in their diet than I do, actually. It's an economy thing, but I understand your point. That point about giving away everything also directly applies: at what point of you handing away things YOU worked for and gained YOURSELF to others is it "enough" ? At what point is there enough excess that others are  justified to just walk up and take something from you because "they have less" ? You seem to be walking a very dangerous line of marxism class-guilt there, and AFAIK every single historical example of that kind ends in ruin and mass-murder...I could be wrong. 
 

Coming onto your middle point about new standards vs exploiting other countries. Should my country just freely give away grain and wood and minerals (our primary exports) without asking for a return? Do we tell our workers "sorry, all that work you did got given away, no pay check for you" ? Seriously, consider that viewpoint. Lithium and cobalt and other rare metals are rare, sure. But that is "trade" and you are from my perspective attributing malice unto the practice. Allow me to return that malice unto the only other option: theft/slavery.



#31 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 01:25 PM

Just to be clear: You do not read the original text from the original source. You read/hear about the source and opinions on the source from a third party, repeatedly. Correct? I'm reminded of a fairly recent Dr. Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman here. I think watching that and thinking back to this context might make a better mental link with what I'm saying re: perceptions about when taken out of context.


Well the tweets are from the source :-). But in general this is not a strong argument of yours, simply how unless I am a reporter in the white house am I supposed to get first-hand information? The point is do you get it frommore reliable source (eg. bbc) or a less reliable source (eg. facebook).
 

 

 


One followed the other though, You've needed to continuously expand scope and keep throwing on more and more appeals to emotion to try and outweigh the cold logic and law, effectively moving the goalposts. I think I've been trying to do the opposite: reduce scope to simplify things to a component level as much as is possible and show judgement process from the component to maintain case invariance.

Immigration : Country->single house, Illegal/immigrants->trespassers though the window,  standard immigration -> The front door.
Charlottsville : Pro/anti history revisionism  -> two people arguing/fighting, city -> house, the "damning racist tweet" -> "Who's the asshole?"

I've only very recently made a "clean up their own mess" talking point, so what about the 3 before that? Linear chain of event man, you can read back though them if you like. :)


 

You call it call to emotion, I call it facing reality if it also called your emotion then that is good. But yeah I agree, I expanded goalposts quite a lot (and discussing this is yet another expansion :-) ). And I mean you call it cold logic tuning down to my house, I see that also as scaled call to emotion....

 

 

Those methods have been put in place and refined to have the maximum BURDEN ...

I do agree these systems make perfect sense, just the definition of "maximum burden" is too low, which relates to our system of too much excess.
 

 

at what point of you handing away things YOU worked for and gained YOURSELF to others is it "enough" ?


At the point when your conscience tells you so :-) Problem is when people have none.
 

 

At what point is there enough excess that others are  justified to just walk up and take something from you because "they have less"

Never. But the opposite question what excess is justified?
 

 

You seem to be walking a very dangerous line of marxism class-guilt there, and AFAIK every single historical example of that kind ends in ruin and mass-murder...I could be wrong.

Yes and no, I do take the human factor/greed into account so although ideas might be good, I know they would not work. But accepting our cheap smartphones and jeans are cheap because others pay the price and are exploited and criticizing that is just the cold truth (which you seem to call "call to emotion"). It is not class-guilt of any kind, it is reality. Just look at the price-difference for faair trade vs H&M clothes....

 

 

Coming onto your middle point about new standards vs exploiting other countries. Should my country just freely give away grain and wood and minerals (our primary exports) without asking for a return? Do we tell our workers "sorry, all that work you did got given away, no pay check for you" ? Seriously, consider that viewpoint. Lithium and cobalt and other rare metals are rare, sure. But that is "trade" and you are from my perspective attributing malice unto the practice. Allow me to return that malice unto the only other option: theft/slavery.


Is it it trade if foreign industries (foreign as  for examplein chinese company mining in DRC) get all the income from mining? Is it trade? Or is it foreign countries exploiting  another country? And then when a country actually tries to fix this the corporations cry( https://www.bbc.com/...LDVEuWXsXJtgIyA) saying no more worth it etc....So no as it is now it is not trade, it is exploitation...
I have nothing against trade, but against exploitation. So I mantain it, our new standards are possible because of exploitation not because of trade. Since I know the human factor, we are used to this standard (me included) so we have to change the system for instance by starting to pay a bit more for things...a la fair trade so that the increase goes down along the whole chain.

 

 



#32 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2701 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 02:10 PM

Well the tweets are from the source :-). But in general this is not a strong argument of yours, simply how unless I am a reporter in the white house am I supposed to get first-hand information? The point is do you get it frommore reliable source (eg. bbc) or a less reliable source (eg. facebook).

No, the primary souce in case of "proof of racism in tweets" is twitter. You can directly link and search there. Instead you take/took a step of abstraction and link to an editorial article that takes things out of context. Words are "quoted" without the surrounding words.(already VERY SHORT because of the way twitter works)

I can go up in your previous post and do the same to you as that article you used as "proof with all the context"
eg "So to clarify, my news I get them from bbc.com, not some...reliable source of news" -Sanctus
Oh look, it's still a quote! but the meaning has been entirely subverted because taken out of context. I spotted examples of exactly this behavior in the article you linked as proof. That is hearsay. That is Libel, although libel protected by expensive court costs to correct it. It happens often enough that you seem to be taking it as truth just because it is familiar to you. I hope you read my links on the matter, it is important you are able to spot it. Go re-read the "proof" you provided with this in mind.
 
 
 

Is it it trade if foreign industries (foreign as  for examplein chinese company mining in DRC) get all the income from mining? Is it trade? Or is it foreign countries exploiting  another country? And then when a country actually tries to fix this the corporations cry( https://www.bbc.com/...LDVEuWXsXJtgIyA) saying no more worth it etc....So no as it is now it is not trade, it is exploitation...
I have nothing against trade, but against exploitation. So I mantain it, our new standards are possible because of exploitation not because of trade. Since I know the human factor, we are used to this standard (me included) so we have to change the system for instance by starting to pay a bit more for things...a la fair trade so that the increase goes down along the whole chain.

There's an irony here: What is the government doing with their existing revenue(the article clearly states they are increasing it from an existing amount)? Are they investing it in infrastructure so they can mine it themselves and maintain all the profits? Is that government looking to exploit the increased demand for an unfair share? Are they mismanaging their own economy? Seems to me that there are local solutions available but that you are blaming foreign interests for 100% of the problems. If there was ZERO trade for those resources, would the congo be better off?  Also: How is The Congo having imbalanced trade practice with China related to Trump being racist?
 
 
 
 

 

I do agree these systems make perfect sense, just the definition of "maximum burden" is too low, which relates to our system of too much excess.
 

Never. But the opposite question what excess is justified?
 

Yes and no, I do take the human factor/greed into account so although ideas might be good, I know they would not work. But accepting our cheap smartphones and jeans are cheap because others pay the price and are exploited and criticizing that is just the cold truth (which you seem to call "call to emotion"). It is not class-guilt of any kind, it is reality. Just look at the price-difference for faair trade vs H&M clothes....
 


When is excess justified? same answer you gave "At the point when your conscience tells you so" Who are you to attribute evil to someone who works hard so their children don't have to? That's what is sounds like you're doing. If I work overtime so I can afford something, so that I have EXCESS beyond merely living hand to mouth, I fully believe that excess is justified. If i negotiate a few hundred dollars more on a sale, or a few hundred less on a purchase, all of that excess is justified. Can you consider otherwise with a straight face? I highly doubt that.

Do you also accept that those smartphones and jeans allow the people who made them to not die? You seem to be making a horrible emotional appeal very similar to one I've come across before.

A man pulls up in a smortscar wearing a nice watch and walks into a bank. Two people on the roa talk about it. One says "gees I wonder how many people they could have fed and clothed for the price of that car and watch? The Excess is disgusting!"
The other says" Well, I'm sure the car put food on the table and cloths on the backs of several workers at the auto plant, and keeps cloths and food on the table for the mechanics. It's probably giving the teenage gass attendant some pocket change and maybe helping them save up for school. Both the car and watch helped feed the miners who excavated the metals, the workers at the smelters, and I'm sure several people from the craftsmen to the jewler who sold it to him."

The problem I see is that you are coming to irrational conclusions from only partially thought out chains of consequence and emotional appeals. Serious about the book "Against Empathy" You should read it.



#33 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 04:08 AM

Ok I see your point about quote out of context, but:
also if I were to take only the tweets (which btw are fully reprinted on bbc usually) you would still say I took the single tweets out of the context (which is the only way of highlighting one ;-)).

Congo: it is fun you fall exactly into the trap I did not say here, but did when I posted this article on facebook. I said someting like "of course, there is a lot people who say the additional money is just/mainly going to corruption. Thing is that is probably right, but local people can do something about that, while against money disappearing in a foreign company they can't do much". So thanks to this, the blaming if nothing changes moves more and more to locals.

Also: How is The Congo having imbalanced trade practice with China related to Trump being racist?


Come'on Gahd, in the discussion we are having there is a logical chain which led here. Yeah, of course,  out of context like you like to point out ;), it has nothing to do.

Do you also accept that those smartphones and jeans allow the people who made them to not die? You seem to be making a horrible emotional appeal very similar to one I've come across before.

See,  this is how our system is sick...I know if somehow a law is passed worldwide that minimum wage has to increase and maximum work hours reduced with the end product at same price it only implies a lot of people lose their job...Another fun example of this: I had a friend you doing civil service (instead of army in Switzerland, one of the 2 is compulsory) he went to Madagascar to teach physics, when he got there the school director told him that he can have a private cook, he said wtf this is colonialist bullshit, then director said that she has 4 kids and no income otherwise, so my friend had a private cook for a year...
Anyway that is why I am advocating for fair trade along the whole chain, implying that we have to pay more....
On the other hand:
You know slavery, also tends to make people not die (as long as they a re fit to work at least). This is where your argument breaks down and where it shows how sick the system is. Because such that we can live in our excess and afford it (eg. always last iphone), many are forced to work in conditions close to slavery (forced because as you say otherwise they die). This is what I say is wrong. This is why I say we should pay more for our excess such that it goes down the whole chain of production.
So no, sorry, it is not a partial thought and neither irrational conclusion.

Wrt to your sportscar example:
1) I prefer the decadent rich people to the non-decadent because they put money back in circulation.
2) Of course, it helped feed people along the whole production chain, what I am saying is not enough gets to the ones at the bottom (see previous paragraph).




 

#34 Orion

Orion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 12:34 PM

Every response above mine only attacked his freedom of speech.

Even in politics it's Red vs Blue, The blue party is in a lot of trouble.

this term and the next.

if you want an examination.

 

Has money Works for you anyway.

Trying to close a border that costs us 160 billion a year in immigration.

has even beat some records along the way.(un-employment)

Gave 100M to flint Michigan when they had no water for months.

ect (v)

https://www.snopes.c...p-accomplished/

 

4 Months of work

now tell me what you did the past 4 months.