Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLITICAL

[Tomanyiron]

Two Headlines from CNN on the same day.

“Trump has a real shot of winning”

“Trump will lose in a landslide because of the economy, new election model predicts”

The staff at CNN are working on another story. It’s called
“Biden will likely win,
(if Trumps happens to lose”.)

[userque]

Two Headlines from CNN on the same day.

“Trump has a real shot of winning”

“Trump will lose in a landslide because of the economy, new election model predicts”

The staff at CNN are working on another story. It’s called
“Biden will likely win,
(if Trumps happens to lose”.)

That's it T, hop right back into the routine! I'm with you bro.

Since you cite no sources, we don't know whether it's the same news person contradicting themselves, or whether there're different ones offering "facts," or opinions. All these points would make a difference, right T?

Regardless, I hope you certainly aren't saying (because you offer no opinion yourself) that what you've posted is equivalent to what FOX does:

YouTube Link

[Tomanyiron]

No biggie userque, I just thought it was funny. I was looking at Google news, I saw the first one, and then 2-3 items down they had the other. The last one was a jab at CNN.
I don't defend Fox, do you defend CNN?
I go down the Headlines on Google news, every day or so. If something looks interesting, I read/watch a little. Most of the time I get mad at myself for even looking.

On another note, what do you think of Tulsi Gabbard? She was my favorite Dem candidate.

[userque]

No biggie userque, I just thought it was funny. I was looking at Google news, I saw the first one, and then 2-3 items down they had the other. The last one was a jab at CNN.

Got it.

I don't defend Fox, do you defend CNN?

If an attack is made on CNN seemingly in order to rebut or discredit a point I've made, then I may defend CNN, unless the attack is valid.

I suggested FOX is the most biased. You replied with an attack on CNN. I had to proceed as though you were suggesting CNN is just as biased, or worse, than FOX. ("Silence is acquiescence" http://educationcenter2000.com/doctrine ... scence.htm)

Had you opened with, "I know FOX is worse, but check this out ..." I would not have responded.

Happens all the time. Trump gets attacked. Instead of defending him, someone will attack Obama, or Schiff, or Pelosi, you know what I'm talking about. Why that happens is obvious.

And unless those counter-attacks are relevant to my initial point, I usually don't respond.

Yeah, I know, it's not that serious. But like Coach used to tell us, "you play like you practice."

It seems grown wo/men need to have some sort of hero. Someone they'll defend regardless. We called that jock strap riding back in the day. I don't ride any man's jock strap, or coat tail. But if I ever decided to, it certainly wouldn't be that of a buffoon's. We called a spade a spade. I still do.

The original Americans couldn't stand a king; this generation seems to long for one. This is why history repeats, because the knowledge of past generations is lost when they die, and newer generations lack sufficient education to understand the reasoning of the past decisions.

This is why I'm intrigued by seemingly intelligent people, supporting an obviously, incompetent, inexperienced, uneducated, would-be King.

Often times, I study and look to the animal kingdom for answers. (Wolf/Dog) Pack dynamics are not skewed by free will, for example. Without going into all of the details, I believe Trump supporters are drawn to the mere appearance of strong leadership, notwithstanding the reality. It's wired into our DNA. Anyway, I could go on, but that's another topic.

I go down the Headlines on Google news, every day or so. If something looks interesting, I read/watch a little. Most of the time I get mad at myself for even looking.

On another note, what do you think of Tulsi Gabbard? She was my favorite Dem candidate.

From what I've heard, she probably would have been a competent POTUS. But unless you do real research into a candidate, you never really know ... unless it's an obvious, or what should be an obvious, call.

And you'd have to research specific issues that concern you: how would she be on foreign policy with China, ... with NK, on civil rights, etc. etc.

But who does that, right?

[Aitrus]

I suggested FOX is the most biased. You replied with an attack on CNN. I had to proceed as though you were suggesting CNN is just as biased, or worse, than FOX. ("Silence is acquiescence" http://educationcenter2000.com/doctrine ... scence.htm)

Not meaning to wade into the Fox / CNN debate here, but I disagree with your presentation of "silence is acquiescence", or "silence implies consent", or "silence is agreement". This is a logical fallacy.

Using it as you did - and as the Supreme Court did in the case you cited - an accused rapist could say "She didn't say no, so her silence meant that she consented to what we were doing." It's also seen in the statement "Nobody alive has ever seen God, so therefore he doesn't exist" because it implies that the absence of physical eyewitnesses proves the absence of God. This is also why we have the 5th Amendment: it's a logical fallacy to assume that the person is guilty because they use the 5th to avoid incriminating themselves.

Just because somebody doesn't answer your question doesn't mean they agree with it.

This is why I'm intrigued by seemingly intelligent people, supporting an obviously, incompetent, inexperienced, uneducated, would-be King.

I agree with this, but I suggest that it can be applied to both sides. After all, couldn't this line describe many on the Left if this line was said from the Right? Don't you think that a great many on the Right think that AOC, Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, and others are incompetent, undeducated, inexperienced, would-be rulers?

I'm not saying that what you said isn't true. I'm saying it doesn't apply to only one side of the aisle.

This is why history repeats, because the knowledge of past generations is lost when they die, and newer generations lack sufficient education to understand the reasoning of the past decisions.

Bingo! But then the question is: what is "sufficient education"? Is it the Left and the socialism / marxism / social engineering education goals that those on the Right fear? Is it the Right and Bible thumping / 1940's uber-patriotism education goals that those on the Left fear? Is it any kind of "public indoctrination education" as the anti-authoritarians fear? Is it the "misinformed homeschool indoctrination" as the the authoritarians fear? Should a teacher be responsible for teaching kids morals and values are and how they apply to life, or should that be the right and responsibility of the parents?

Who gets to decide what "sufficient education" is, what it looks like, and presents it to the kids?

Here's my take: we should be teaching kids "how" to think, not "what" to think - and by that, I mean teach them to think critically for themselves. Present them with all the facts and opinions on both sides of a debate, and let them make up their own minds. That's what we're doing with our kids. My wife and I are - generally - on the same side of the political aisle. However, as part of our parenting strategy we agreed to present both sides to our kids (and we can each argue either side fairly well). Our kids know which side we stand on with a number of issues, but have been given as much data as possible from both sides.

Then again, there are those - on both sides of the aisle - who think that my way is backwards, and that we should absolutely be teaching kids "what" to think and to not question it.

[userque]

I suggested FOX is the most biased. You replied with an attack on CNN. I had to proceed as though you were suggesting CNN is just as biased, or worse, than FOX. ("Silence is acquiescence" http://educationcenter2000.com/doctrine ... scence.htm)

Not meaning to wade into the Fox / CNN debate here, but I disagree with your presentation of "silence is acquiescence", or "silence implies consent", or "silence is agreement". This is a logical fallacy.

Which logical fallacy would that be?

Using it as you did - and as the Supreme Court did in the case you cited - an accused rapist could say "She didn't say no, so her silence meant that she consented to what we were doing." It's also seen in the statement "Nobody alive has ever seen God, so therefore he doesn't exist" because it implies that the absence of physical eyewitnesses proves the absence of God. This is also why we have the 5th Amendment: it's a logical fallacy to assume that the person is guilty because they use the 5th to avoid incriminating themselves.

You are confusing, among other things, consent with acquiescence. Again, state the fallacy, and show us how it applies.

Just because somebody doesn't answer your question doesn't mean they agree with it.

My response to T had nothing to do with this. It wasn't about one not answering another's question. Please re-read our discussion.

This is why I'm intrigued by seemingly intelligent people, supporting an obviously, incompetent, inexperienced, uneducated, would-be King.

I agree with this, but I suggest that it can be applied to both sides. After all, couldn't this line describe many on the Left if this line was said from the Right? Don't you think that a great many on the Right think that AOC, Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, and others are incompetent, undeducated, inexperienced, would-be rulers?

Sure, but would it be a reasonable argument that Obama was inexperienced in politics when he first ran for POTUS? Etc. Anyone can argue anything, as we see on this website.

I'm not saying that what you said isn't true. I'm saying it doesn't apply to only one side of the aisle.

It applies specifically; case by case. If you want to apply it, apply it specifically. I never said it doesn't apply to anyone else in the world. I took the time to apply it, and post about it, specifically. If you want to apply it to another, please do.

This is why history repeats, because the knowledge of past generations is lost when they die, and newer generations lack sufficient education to understand the reasoning of the past decisions.

Bingo! But then the question is: what is "sufficient education"? Is it the Left and the socialism / marxism / social engineering education goals that those on the Right fear? Is it the Right and Bible thumping / 1940's uber-patriotism education goals that those on the Left fear? Is it any kind of "public indoctrination education" as the anti-authoritarians fear? Is it the "misinformed homeschool indoctrination" as the the authoritarians fear? Should a teacher be responsible for teaching kids morals and values are and how they apply to life, or should that be the right and responsibility of the parents?

Who gets to decide what "sufficient education" is, what it looks like, and presents it to the kids?

Slow down Tito, before we decide which galaxy we want to visit, we first have to work out some space travel issues closer to home. In other words, before I use brain power considering what US kids should be taught, there first has to be a consensus that they need to be taught something different. For now, the argument, imo, is that they need to be taught something different. If that argument fails, then all else is pssing in the wind. Of course, we can debate it anyways, if we both want to.

Here's my take: we should be teaching kids "how" to think, not "what" to think - and by that, I mean teach them to think critically for themselves. Present them with all the facts and opinions on both sides of a debate, and let them make up their own minds. That's what we're doing with our kids. My wife and I are - generally - on the same side of the political aisle. However, as part of our parenting strategy we agreed to present both sides to our kids (and we can each argue either side fairly well). Our kids know which side we stand on with a number of issues, but have been given as much data as possible from both sides.

Ok. I see. You're talking generally. Yes, as a general response, I agree with this, and have posted so in the past.

Then again, there are those - on both sides of the aisle - who think that my way is backwards, and that we should absolutely be teaching kids "what" to think and to not question it.

I disagree with them. And that mindset probably has a lot to do with the state of this country right now.

Imo, kids can and should have their own thoughts and opinions; but can't necessary have their own actions. Iow, though they may disagree, they still must obey.

Nobody can force kids, or anyone else, to think a certain way; though you can force them to say that they think a certain way--which is worthless.

Welcome back.

[PhilJohn]

I didn't know people watch CNN.

Weird.

[Aitrus]

Which logical fallacy would that be?...Again, state the fallacy, and show us how it applies.

Argument from silence. It's an inferrence fallacy. Using silence - either in historical documents or in lack of an answer to a question - to infer a conclusion. For example, if I were to ask "I think that Fox News is unbiased. Do you think that Fox News is unbiased?" and you don't say anything to disagree with me, it would be a fallacy for me to infer that you agree with me on the statement "Fox News is unbiased". Or - in the case of the rapist example I gave - lack of disagreement can't be inferred to be consent or acquiescence.

My response to T had nothing to do with this. It wasn't about one not answering another's question. Please re-read our discussion.

Agreed - the fallacy didn't have anything to do with the discussion. The reason I addressed the point was that I was confused as to why you brought it up by stating the "silence is acquiescence" case. You asked him about Fox, he replied about CNN, and you inferred from his doing so regarding his beliefs about Fox. He never actually gave you an answer. He might agree with you or he might not - he just didn't say it. What I was trying to point out was that using your "silence is acquiescence" statement to infer what he believes about Fox is a form of logical fallacy on your part.

Sure, but would it be a reasonable argument that Obama was inexperienced in politics when he first ran for POTUS? Etc. Anyone can argue anything, as we see on this website.

Yes, it's an entirely reasonable argument. He had no experience running a business, budgeting, or large enterprise of any kind, and had little meaningful political experience at the Federal level. He graduated Harvard in 1992. His first elected office was in 1996 at the State level, where he served on a minor committee. He was elected to the US Senate in 2005, and to the Presidency in 2008. He had served only a single term in office at the Federal level before becoming elected to the Presidency, and he had no business / budgeting experience suitable to the position.

Was Trump experienced in politics? No, unless you count "office politics". Was he experienced with money, compromising, and deal-making? Yes. Is handling money and deal-making a part of the Presidency? Of course it is - so in that sense, he was very experienced - arguably much more so than Obama was at the start of his first term in the Oval Office.

It applies specifically; case by case. If you want to apply it, apply it specifically. I never said it doesn't apply to anyone else in the world. I took the time to apply it, and post about it, specifically. If you want to apply it to another, please do.

See above with Obama / Trump. AOC's history and inexperience is self-evident and well documented.

Slow down Tito, before we decide which galaxy we want to visit, we first have to work out some space travel issues closer to home. In other words, before I use brain power considering what US kids should be taught, there first has to be a consensus that they need to be taught something different. For now, the argument, imo, is that they need to be taught something different. If that argument fails, then all else is pssing in the wind. Of course, we can debate it anyways, if we both want to.

We are in agreement - they do need to be taught something different.

I disagree with them. And that mindset probably has a lot to do with the state of this country right now.

Interesting. Can you elaborate? Unless you mean the following...

Imo, kids can and should have their own thoughts and opinions; but can't necessary have their own actions. Iow, though they may disagree, they still must obey.

Nobody can force kids, or anyone else, to think a certain way; though you can force them to say that they think a certain way--which is worthless.

I disagree. National Geographic did a documentary called "Inside North Korea". I think it's still on Netflix, but it's hard to find on YouTube without other commentary attached. I've found a vlogger who shows the portion of the documentary I want to present to you. Here's what forcing kids to say and behave a certain way for 60 years can result in, and what eventually becomes natural habit in adulthood (runs from 0:35 - 3:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdUp5dCRlpc

Many in America believe that this is what is happening in our schools - that kids are a captive audience which is being fed a certain set of ideas by an establishment (public education / left-wing academics) with an agenda they disagree with. And they have a point - things that this section of America used to believe had no place in the country is now either mainstream or is accepted policy (gay marriage, transgenderism / multiple gender identity options, globalism, growing acceptance of socialism, group-think in regards to science, the transition of morality from a set of rigid guiding principles to something flexible and mutable, the demonization of capitalism, abdicating of personal responsibility, etc.).

This facet of America has seen this occurring in our schools increasingly in the last 40 years - and at an increasing pace in the last 10-20 (especially on college campuses). It scares them about what it implies for the future of America and Western Civilization in general. The things they fought against - or that their parents fought against - are now being taught in school as a legitimate option - or even the ideal goal that should be striven for (socialism / socialistic traits, for example).

While I don't agree with everything this facet of America believes in (which might be yet more evidence of how their fears may be justified), I do see their point.

Welcome back.

Thanks. Never left, just went quiet for a while.

[userque]

Argument from silence. It's an inferrence fallacy. Using silence - either in historical documents or in lack of an answer to a question - to infer a conclusion. For example, if I were to ask "I think that Fox News is unbiased. Do you think that Fox News is unbiased?" and you don't say anything to disagree with me, it would be a fallacy for me to infer that you agree with me on the statement "Fox News is unbiased". Or - in the case of the rapist example I gave - lack of disagreement can't be inferred to be consent or acquiescence.

Argument from silence is a fallacy with regard to documents and writings. I'll first wait for you to agree or rebut (or remain silent) with regard to this response, as I have more to add.

EDIT: This is likely due to the fact that a document or written work can't respond to the allegation. It can't clarify or defend. This is not the case for oral arguments; or a back and forth real-time chat forum discussion. Again, I have more; just giving us a chance to address this point first.

Agreed - the fallacy didn't have anything to do with the discussion. The reason I addressed the point was that I was confused as to why you brought it up by stating the "silence is acquiescence" case. You asked him about Fox, he replied about CNN, and you inferred from his doing so regarding his beliefs about Fox. He never actually gave you an answer. He might agree with you or he might not - he just didn't say it. What I was trying to point out was that using your "silence is acquiescence" statement to infer what he believes about Fox is a form of logical fallacy on your part.

See above response.

Sure, but would it be a reasonable argument that Obama was inexperienced in politics when he first ran for POTUS? Etc. Anyone can argue anything, as we see on this website.

Yes, it's an entirely reasonable argument. He had no experience running a business, budgeting, or large enterprise of any kind, and had little meaningful political experience at the Federal level. He graduated Harvard in 1992. His first elected office was in 1996 at the State level, where he served on a minor committee. He was elected to the US Senate in 2005, and to the Presidency in 2008. He had served only a single term in office at the Federal level before becoming elected to the Presidency, and he had no business / budgeting experience suitable to the position.

Was Trump experienced in politics? No, unless you count "office politics". Was he experienced with money, compromising, and deal-making? Yes. Is handling money and deal-making a part of the Presidency? Of course it is - so in that sense, he was very experienced - arguably much more so than Obama was at the start of his first term in the Oval Office.

Obama had experience in politics. I never said federal politics.
The definition of 'inexperience' means having little knowledge.
It is unreasonable to say Obama was inexperienced in politics:

1997-2004 IL State Senator
2005-2008 Senator

Now, had I said Obama had 'a lot' or 'a small amount' of experience; then that could be debatable as 'a lot' and 'a small amount' might mean different things to different people.

It applies specifically; case by case. If you want to apply it, apply it specifically. I never said it doesn't apply to anyone else in the world. I took the time to apply it, and post about it, specifically. If you want to apply it to another, please do.

See above with Obama / Trump. AOC's history and inexperience is self-evident and well documented.

Ok.

I disagree with them. And that mindset probably has a lot to do with the state of this country right now.

Interesting. Can you elaborate? ...

World knowledge and understandings grow with time. The next generation should be smarter and more intelligent than the previous. However, if the next generation is "forced" to (brainwashing, etc.) think and believe as the previous generation, then there is no growth, only stagnation.

Now, of course, this doesn't happen this way in all cases. But it happens enough that we still have some of the same exact ignorance problems in this country that we had hundreds of years ago.

Imo, kids can and should have their own thoughts and opinions; but can't necessary have their own actions. Iow, though they may disagree, they still must obey.

Nobody can force kids, or anyone else, to think a certain way; though you can force them to say that they think a certain way--which is worthless.

I disagree. National Geographic did a documentary called "Inside North Korea". I think it's still on Netflix, but it's hard to find on YouTube without other commentary attached. I've found a vlogger who shows the portion of the documentary I want to present to you. Here's what forcing kids to say and behave a certain way for 60 years can result in, and what eventually becomes natural habit in adulthood (runs from 0:35 - 3:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdUp5dCRlpc

Many in America believe that this is what is happening in our schools - that kids are a captive audience which is being fed a certain set of ideas by an establishment (public education / left-wing academics) with an agenda they disagree with. And they have a point - things that this section of America used to believe had no place in the country is now either mainstream or is accepted policy (gay marriage, transgenderism / multiple gender identity options, globalism, growing acceptance of socialism, group-think in regards to science, the transition of morality from a set of rigid guiding principles to something flexible and mutable, the demonization of capitalism, abdicating of personal responsibility, etc.).

This facet of America has seen this occurring in our schools increasingly in the last 40 years - and at an increasing pace in the last 10-20 (especially on college campuses). It scares them about what it implies for the future of America and Western Civilization in general. The things they fought against - or that their parents fought against - are now being taught in school as a legitimate option - or even the ideal goal that should be striven for (socialism / socialistic traits, for example).

While I don't agree with everything this facet of America believes in (which might be yet more evidence of how their fears may be justified), I do see their point.

You missed my point. I said no mind can be forced to believe something it doesn't really believe. I said you can force someone to say anything, however.

I did not say that you could not trick, persuade, convince, encourage a mind to believe something.

But if you do those things, it's not force. Force happens relatively quickly. Persuasion and brainwashing and the like takes much longer.

I could have convinced you to sign up for Trump Univ., even when you didn't want to at first. If you then believed my bs about how great the Univ. was; you would have been bs'd; not forced.

It is impossible for a mind to believe what it doesn't really believe. Think about it.

Welcome back.

Thanks. Never left, just went quiet for a while.

A distinction without a difference.

"Welcome back"
1. A greeting said to someone upon their return.
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/welcome+back

In this case, you returned from being quiet. You returned to posting. Etc. Etc.

[Tomanyiron]

userque get your juices flowing again. Do you have anything to say about this Fox interview? Like why would McConaughey go to FOX for this. And if Fox is totally bias, why have him on?

Matthew McConaughey warns against partisan division over coronavirus response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycl5GQTsw1s

[userque]

userque get your juices flowing again. Do you have anything to say about this Fox interview?

Not on my own motion, I wouldn't post a narrative response. But since you asked specific questions, my juices are flowing again.

Like why would McConaughey go to FOX for this.

Did he go to FOX, or did FOX go to him?

And if Fox is totally bias, why have him on?

Not All or None:

I don't believe I said FOX is totally biased. Nothing I've found is 100% anything. Even the "nothing" I'm referring to.

Bad people are still capable of doing good acts; and vice versa.

Stock markets retrace during downtrends; and vice versa.

Etc.

Politics:

It could be that their previous position failed to persuade enough viewers. As of April, the majority of both R's and D's favor wearing masks and distancing. So rather than take that "L" indefinitely, they switched sides.

If a bad man does a good act: BRAVO!
Doesn't necessarily mean that the man is no longer bad. Time will tell.

If the market retraces higher during a downtrend, and I'm long: BRAVO!
Doesn't necessarily mean that the downtrend is over. Time will tell.

If FOX did an unbiased news piece: BRAVO!
Doesn't necessarily mean that they will be unbiased in the future. Time will tell.

[Aitrus]

Argument from silence is a fallacy with regard to documents and writings. I'll first wait for you to agree or rebut (or remain silent) with regard to this response, as I have more to add.

EDIT: This is likely due to the fact that a document or written work can't respond to the allegation. It can't clarify or defend. This is not the case for oral arguments; or a back and forth real-time chat forum discussion. Again, I have more; just giving us a chance to address this point first.

Hmm...I can see your point about historical works, but I was also taught that the absence of an answer is not an answer because it's not conclusively indicative of what the answer could have been (the place where I learned it was in a critical thinking course while in the military). I was also taught that it applies to answers given with hesitation or a pause before the answer - the delay or pause doesn't necessarily imply anything.

For example, when the news has two guest commentators on to discuss an issue, consider what often happens at the end of the segment. One commenters is given 10 seconds, and the other person is given the last word. The commentator with 10 seconds asks a complicated question (or an absurd one filled with false assumptions or faulty logic), and when the other person doesn't immediately answer the first one says "See? He doesn't have an answer! He's completely wrong on the issue!". This is a false inference - the second person's silence doesn't mean he's wrong on the subject or doesn't know how to respond. It might just mean that he/she is confused by the question, or is trying to process the illogic of how it was presented, etc.

Obama had experience in politics. I never said federal politics.
The definition of 'inexperience' means having little knowledge.
It is unreasonable to say Obama was inexperienced in politics:

1997-2004 IL State Senator
2005-2008 Senator

Now, had I said Obama had 'a lot' or 'a small amount' of experience; then that could be debatable as 'a lot' and 'a small amount' might mean different things to different people.

Ok, let's rephrase the statement. It can be said that Obama lacked sufficient experience to be ready for the office of President. He had experience - yes, but not a lot compared to most previous holders of the office. He also had no experience running a business or budgeting within a large enterprise (that I am aware of) nor any experience in the military or leading / directing military operations. Given that the only real thing going for him was a small amount of Federal experience and being at least 35 years of age (per the Constitution), what qualified him for the office?

Similarly, I could agree that Trump lacked certain kinds of experience - on both the State and Federal level. However, he had a lot of experience in other areas that are important to the office as I mentioned previously. I think that - taken as a whole - Trump's experience better prepared him for the office than Obama's did.

World knowledge and understandings grow with time. The next generation should be smarter and more intelligent than the previous. However, if the next generation is "forced" to (brainwashing, etc.) think and believe as the previous generation, then there is no growth, only stagnation.

Now, of course, this doesn't happen this way in all cases. But it happens enough that we still have some of the same exact ignorance problems in this country that we had hundreds of years ago.

Agreed. Believe it or not, most conservatives will agree with you. They just disagree with the Left on the way to progress forward. Conservatives want to progress, but without losing those things that give us our cultural and national identity. They want to "conserve" those things that make us who we are because they are worth preserving. Conservatives feel that a base common understanding of things is necessary to proceed onward and upward - that you can't touch the clouds without standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were. However, a lot of conservatives feel that Progressives don't feel this way, that Progressives instead want to progress forward by tearing down what is understood and replace it with nonsense, illogic, or immoral stances.

You missed my point. I said no mind can be forced to believe something it doesn't really believe. I said you can force someone to say anything, however.

I did not say that you could not trick, persuade, convince, encourage a mind to believe something.

But if you do those things, it's not force. Force happens relatively quickly. Persuasion and brainwashing and the like takes much longer.

I could have convinced you to sign up for Trump Univ., even when you didn't want to at first. If you then believed my bs about how great the Univ. was; you would have been bs'd; not forced.

It is impossible for a mind to believe what it doesn't really believe. Think about it.

Ah, gotcha. I see where you're coming from. Just as I find the term "Motivate your people" or "motivate somebody" is silly. Nobody can dig into somebody's head and flip the "motivation" switch to make the person have buy-in to whatever topic or action is under consideration. Only a person can do that themselves.

But what if a person is presented with only a certain specific view - either from an enclosed / strictly controlled environment where only certain information is allowed to be discussed under pain of punishment (North Korea or closed cult communities), or from lack of contact (feral children). Then there is also the case of people who change their beliefs and behaviors to survive under extreme circumstances, such as with Stockholm Syndrome or the 22 British and American POWs who refused to be repatriated from North Korean prisons in 1953 as part of the cease fire. Do you think that the individual can be reasonably expected to hold on to their original beliefs in the face of such circumstances?

I know that this is diverging from the topic somewhat, but I'm curious as to your view on this subject.

[userque]

Hmm...I can see your point about historical works, but I was also taught that the absence of an answer is not an answer because it's not conclusively indicative of what the answer could have been (the place where I learned it was in a critical thinking course while in the military). I was also taught that it applies to answers given with hesitation or a pause before the answer - the delay or pause doesn't necessarily imply anything.

For example, when the news has two guest commentators on to discuss an issue, consider what often happens at the end of the segment. One commenters is given 10 seconds, and the other person is given the last word. The commentator with 10 seconds asks a complicated question (or an absurd one filled with false assumptions or faulty logic), and when the other person doesn't immediately answer the first one says "See? He doesn't have an answer! He's completely wrong on the issue!". This is a false inference - the second person's silence doesn't mean he's wrong on the subject or doesn't know how to respond. It might just mean that he/she is confused by the question, or is trying to process the illogic of how it was presented, etc.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about slow answers.

The doctrine is a legal one. It's not designed with perfection in mind. Humans will draw inferences. You want your lawyer to look like a lawyer, not meet with you in his favorite t-shirt, even though clothes have nothing to do with skill level. You want your surgeon to look, and talk like a surgeon, before he cuts on you.

Courts and people want reasonable, simple questions to be answered. When they are avoided, with no reasonable reason given; it will imply a negative inference, regardless whether it actually applies.

We have to make decisions. Those decisions can't wait until we can be 100% certain about the decision. Judges hear cases, and issue judgments, correct or not. They never say, "I don't know." or "I'm 100% certain."

We see someone that looks like a bum, smells like one, and we'd refuse to shake his hand. That's life. If we avoid simple questions, expect others to draw a negative inference. We can make reasonable conclusions about others based upon how they look, how they talk, and how they refuse to talk. (Making unreasonable conclusions is unfair 'profiling')

Finally, if you are sued, and don't answer/respond to the suit, a negative inference is drawn. Every allegation of the suit is deemed true, and a judgment is entered against you. This is not a new doctrine; nor is it unusual behavior. Life moves and whether we answer questions or not; whether we answer lawsuits or not. We don't stop the show.

If you refuse to answer simple, reasonable questions during a debate, then you assume the risk. You can't have it both ways. You can't refuse simple, reasonable questions, and also demand that no one draw any conclusions from your refusals. That's not how the real world works.

He had experience - yes,

And this was my argument.

Given that the only real thing going for him was a small amount of Federal experience and being at least 35 years of age (per the Constitution), what qualified him for the office?

I never argued that he was qualified for the office. But I will say that I think having a green senator is more acceptable and less dangerous than having a green POTUS. Why one would think it is a good idea to elect someone with no political experience, at all, into the most important political office in the world, is beyond me.

You sound like you're not familiar with politics. CEO skills have nothing to do with political skills. Being the boss means nearly everyone just has to obey. That is the exact opposite of politics.

Similarly, I could agree that Trump lacked certain kinds of experience - on both the State and Federal level. However, he had a lot of experience in other areas that are important to the office as I mentioned previously. I think that - taken as a whole - Trump's experience better prepared him for the office than Obama's did.

I agree to disagree. And won't debate such an unreasonable and subjective assertion.

Agreed. Believe it or not, most conservatives will agree with you. They just disagree with the Left on the way to progress forward. Conservatives want to progress, but without losing those things that give us our cultural and national identity. They want to "conserve" those things that make us who we are because they are worth preserving.

Describe this culture and identity you speak of.

Conservatives feel that a base common understanding of things is necessary to proceed onward and upward - that you can't touch the clouds without standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were. However, a lot of conservatives feel that Progressives don't feel this way, that Progressives instead want to progress forward by tearing down what is understood and replace it with nonsense, illogic, or immoral stances.

Well, we'll never get there with abstracts. Debating in the abstract is futile, imo. I don't do it, normally. We have to deal with real, articulated issues, one by one. No one is asking the other questions to try to understand why the other feels the way they do. And when they do ask, they may not get an answer. Until each side wants to understand why the other side believes as they do; we can never meet in the middle.

Ah, gotcha. I see where you're coming from. Just as I find the term "Motivate your people" or "motivate somebody" is silly. Nobody can dig into somebody's head and flip the "motivation" switch to make the person have buy-in to whatever topic or action is under consideration. Only a person can do that themselves.

I think there is a nomenclature issue here.

You've never been motivated by something or someone to act or not act? I don't believe that.

But what if a person is presented with only a certain specific view - either from an enclosed / strictly controlled environment where only certain information is allowed to be discussed under pain of punishment (North Korea or closed cult communities), or from lack of contact (feral children).

Minds have the ability to think outside of their inputs. Happens all the time. Haven't you had creative ideas? Eisenstein conceived ideas beyond those he learned from the world.

Just because, in our example, all you're taught is one particular deity, doesn't mean you actually believe in that, or any, deity, that you haven't even laid your eyes on.

People who've been active in their religion since a young age can still commit acts that are suppose to send them to hell. Obviously, they don't believe. And some have committed such acts while they were still young.

I remember questioning religion as a child even though it was all I knew.

Then there is also the case of people who change their beliefs and behaviors to survive under extreme circumstances, such as with Stockholm Syndrome or the 22 British and American POWs who refused to be repatriated from North Korean prisons in 1953 as part of the cease fire. Do you think that the individual can be reasonably expected to hold on to their original beliefs in the face of such circumstances?

I've mentioned this earlier. I said that you can't force anyone to believe anything that they don't believe. I then said but, you can force them to say that they believe.

You can't even force yourself to believe something you don't believe. The whole premise of this part of the discussion is an oxymoron in disguise.

[Aitrus]

If you refuse to answer simple, reasonable questions during a debate, then you assume the risk. You can't have it both ways. You can't refuse simple, reasonable questions, and also demand that no one draw any conclusions from your refusals. That's not how the real world works.

Fair points all around. Thank you for explaining the concept, and I'll try to keep it in mind going forward.

I never argued that he was qualified for the office. But I will say that I think having a green senator is more acceptable and less dangerous than having a green POTUS. Why one would think it is a good idea to elect someone with no political experience, at all, into the most important political office in the world, is beyond me.

You sound like you're not familiar with politics. CEO skills have nothing to do with political skills. Being the boss means nearly everyone just has to obey. That is the exact opposite of politics.

You're right, in some ways. Being the CEO and ordering everybody to do as you say is different than the Presidency. And we saw this during Trump's first few months in office as he learned that his power was limited. I would also argue that budgeting, sound monetary policy, and an understanding of the Constitution and fundamental individual liberty is also important. However, these were things that were lacking in many ways during Obama's terms in office. While it seems that Trump has learned about the limits of his powers and the scope of the office, Obama never did. (Example: Trump knows he cannot order the country to shut down or open up - he has left that decision up to the governors, but he is sill able to express his thoughts on the matter. Obama felt that if Congress wouldn't do what he wanted, then he would do it by the stroke of a pen.)

It's interesting that you spoke of the presidential office being a political one. The Founders and most of the early Presidents weren't politicians - they were business owners and entrepreneurs generals, statesmen (which they distinguished separately from politicians). The Founders viewed political parties as a necessary evil, that true patriots don't strive for higher office or political power.

When they created the office of the President, they envisioned it to be a very limited role in the scope of it's powers. They likened it to something akin to the president of a rotary club, the presiding official of a ceremony, etc. The office of the President was to be a meek and humble one - the director of the day-to-day business of the federal government and to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the military. I don't believe that they would recognize what the office has become as akin to what they had envisioned.

I agree to disagree. And won't debate such an unreasonable and subjective assertion.

Why is knowledge of monetary policy, budgeting, and the other things I listed "unreasonable and subjective" in terms of what skills are valuable to serve as President? What skills do you instead assert are necessary to serve in the office?

Describe this culture and identity you speak of.

Until very recently, it was easily understood what American Culture (the culture that Conservatives wish to preserve) consisted of because it was taught to every schoolchild. Even Teddy Roosevelt said in 1907:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

You asked me to describe the culture and identity of which I speak. Ok, here it is (cribbed from http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002189.html - this page puts it more succinctly than I can):

First, America is an offshoot of the Western, Christian, Classical heritage. Culture depends on the long shared history of a people in common cause with one another. The nation was formed and grown by Western Christians, not by Africans or Muslims or Chinese or Asian Indians or American Indians. That said, while America is a nation populated mostly by Christians, it is not itself a "Christian Nation" in that it does not have a national religions (John Adams stated as much in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1783). America is a multi-ethnic country (which is distinctly different than multicultural) - meaning, we have many races within our borders, but we do not have a variety of cultures - at least, we were never meant to (and didn't until very recently). It's impossible for a multicultural nation to survive for very long because aspects of one culture (ex: separation of church and state) are incompatible with another culture (the church is the basis for the state).

Second, within the American version of the Western Tradition, there are specific aspects and tenets:
- The degree of freedom from external controls made possible by the ideal of moral autonomy and self-restraint.
- The habits of self-reliance and local government, which are largely absent from other cultures including continental Europe.
- The shared faith in natural rights, deriving from Locke and the Declaration of Independence.
- The common law tradition and due process of law.
- The principle against self-incrimination.
- The tradition of the loyal opposition and the right to dissent, which stands in contrast to the power group warfare (aka, pure democracy or mob rule) that is present in many other cultures.
- Freedom of speech and the appeal to reason in public discourse.
- The traditions of honesty and fair dealings - the sense of fair play - the idea of reciprocity between all parties.
- The high degree of trust and social cooperation made possible only through the above items.
- As a result of high moral standards, cooperativeness, trust, and freedom, America has a rich tradition of voluntary associations and institutions - from pioneer communities to churches to business enterprises to philanthropies to political and scientific societies - all operating within the law but otherwise free from the state.

These things encompass the bulk of what is considered American Culture. To remove those things means to fundamentally alter and destroy what America is at it's heart.

Well, we'll never get there with abstracts. Debating in the abstract is futile, imo. I don't do it, normally. We have to deal with real, articulated issues, one by one. No one is asking the other questions to try to understand why the other feels the way they do. And when they do ask, they may not get an answer. Until each side wants to understand why the other side believes as they do; we can never meet in the middle.

Very true. However, I - and many Conservatives - see many of the issues as relating to one another, intertwined, and reliant on each other for support. Public school - for example - is mixed in with the issues of government overreach, faulty science (climate change being taught in the classroom), social engineering (transgenderism issues being inserted into school policies and practices), censorship (kids being punished for MAGA shirts), and lack of freedom of association (no prayer groups) just to name a few. To discuss one is to discuss them all, although I do understand the desire to parse them out and speak on them individually. I'll try to do better.

I think there is a nomenclature issue here.

You've never been motivated by something or someone to act or not act? I don't believe that.

Each of us can only motivate ourselves, and use something someone else has said or done to function as the basis for our motivation. They can provide the means by which we motive ourselves, but they can't directly control our thoughts, they can only influence them.

Although, speaking from an adversarial viewpoint I suppose that - over a long period of time - one could be forcibly motivated by a constant barrage of motivational presentations, but only through the breakdown of the mental resistance to being motivated.

Minds have the ability to think outside of their inputs. Happens all the time. Haven't you had creative ideas? Eisenstein conceived ideas beyond those he learned from the world.

True, but Einstein has a basis from which to being from. Nobody goes from not knowing math to coming up with new theories out of the blue (at least not ones that work, anyway). My point with feral children or North Korea is that there are situations where people are not provided that foundational knowledge - or are provided a bastardized form of it by way of propaganda.

Just because, in our example, all you're taught is one particular deity, doesn't mean you actually believe in that, or any, deity, that you haven't even laid your eyes on.

People who've been active in their religion since a young age can still commit acts that are suppose to send them to hell. Obviously, they don't believe. And some have committed such acts while they were still young.

Belief and consistently acting in concert with that belief are two different things.

I remember questioning religion as a child even though it was all I knew.

You and me both, my friend.

I've mentioned this earlier. I said that you can't force anyone to believe anything that they don't believe. I then said but, you can force them to say that they believe.

You can't even force yourself to believe something you don't believe. The whole premise of this part of the discussion is an oxymoron in disguise.

Haha - true. On these terms, it seems like we're splitting hairs, aren't we? Yes, you can't force anyone to believe anything that they don't actually believe, but you can force them to say so.

I guess my problem is this: should we even be presenting bad ideas to impressionable minds? True, we're not forcing them to believe something, but if - for example - a teacher presents a lesson on the benefits of socialism without addressing it's significant downsides and proven bad outcomes, then doesn't that false presentation lead young minds to a certain about socialism? It's true that the teacher didn't force the student to agree that socialism is a good idea, but if a teacher grades the student on their answers regarding the benefits (but not the severe consequences) of socialism then doesn't that lead the child to conclude that socialism is good? It's lying by omission, designed to elicit a certain conclusion about socialism that is favorable to the beliefs of the teacher and/or the public school's instructional goals regarding socialism.

[userque]

You're right, in some ways. Being the CEO and ordering everybody to do as you say is different than the Presidency. And we saw this during Trump's first few months in office as he learned that his power was limited. I would also argue that budgeting, sound monetary policy, and an understanding of the Constitution and fundamental individual liberty is also important. However, these were things that were lacking in many ways during Obama's terms in office. While it seems that Trump has learned about the limits of his powers and the scope of the office, Obama never did. (Example: Trump knows he cannot order the country to shut down or open up - he has left that decision up to the governors, but he is sill able to express his thoughts on the matter. Obama felt that if Congress wouldn't do what he wanted, then he would do it by the stroke of a pen.)

Ok, we're shifting to a Trump v. Obama discussion.

You're talking abstractly. You've presented nothing to support your allegations. So, I'll simply say, you're wrong.

It's interesting that you spoke of the presidential office being a political one. The Founders and most of the early Presidents weren't politicians - they were business owners and entrepreneurs generals, statesmen (which they distinguished separately from politicians). The Founders viewed political parties as a necessary evil, that true patriots don't strive for higher office or political power.

Why do you say that true patriots don't strive for higher office or political power. You are essentially saying that no politician is a true patriot.

When they created the office of the President, they envisioned it to be a very limited role in the scope of it's powers. They likened it to something akin to the president of a rotary club, the presiding official of a ceremony, etc. The office of the President was to be a meek and humble one - the director of the day-to-day business of the federal government and to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the military. I don't believe that they would recognize what the office has become as akin to what they had envisioned.

We agree.

Why is knowledge of monetary policy, budgeting, and the other things I listed "unreasonable and subjective" in terms of what skills are valuable to serve as President? What skills do you instead assert are necessary to serve in the office?

I never said, nor implied that.

Until very recently, it was easily understood what American Culture (the culture that Conservatives wish to preserve) consisted of because it was taught to every schoolchild. Even Teddy Roosevelt said in 1907:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.

So, do you believe a US citizen that is an Italian-American--if that person refers to themselves as such--is not an American at all?

We have room for but one flag, the American flag …

What do you think of all the folks that still proudly fly the confederate flag. A flag of a conquered enemy of the United States Government?

We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

You asked me to describe the culture and identity of which I speak. Ok, here it is (cribbed from http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002189.html - this page puts it more succinctly than I can):

First, America is an offshoot of the Western, Christian, Classical heritage. Culture depends on the long shared history of a people in common cause with one another. The nation was formed and grown by Western Christians, not by Africans

Do you think African slaves had anything to do with growing the nation? To what degree?

or Muslims or Chinese or Asian Indians or American Indians. That said, while America is a nation populated mostly by Christians, it is not itself a "Christian Nation" in that it does not have a national religions (John Adams stated as much in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1783). America is a multi-ethnic country (which is distinctly different than multicultural) - meaning, we have many races within our borders, but we do not have a variety of cultures - at least, we were never meant to (and didn't until very recently). It's impossible for a multicultural nation to survive for very long because aspects of one culture (ex: separation of church and state) are incompatible with another culture (the church is the basis for the state).

Have you really thought this through? Do you really know what culture is? What is your evidence that having more than one culture present in a nation is bad for the nation? Are you saying that everyone should think the same way, and do the same things, in order that a nation survive for very long. Sounds like China's paradigm.

Second, within the American version of the Western Tradition, there are specific aspects and tenets:
- The degree of freedom from external controls made possible by the ideal of moral autonomy and self-restraint.
- The habits of self-reliance and local government, which are largely absent from other cultures including continental Europe.
- The shared faith in natural rights, deriving from Locke and the Declaration of Independence.
- The common law tradition and due process of law.
- The principle against self-incrimination.
- The tradition of the loyal opposition and the right to dissent, which stands in contrast to the power group warfare (aka, pure democracy or mob rule) that is present in many other cultures.
- Freedom of speech and the appeal to reason in public discourse.
- The traditions of honesty and fair dealings - the sense of fair play - the idea of reciprocity between all parties.
- The high degree of trust and social cooperation made possible only through the above items.
- As a result of high moral standards, cooperativeness, trust, and freedom, America has a rich tradition of voluntary associations and institutions - from pioneer communities to churches to business enterprises to philanthropies to political and scientific societies - all operating within the law but otherwise free from the state.

These things encompass the bulk of what is considered American Culture. To remove those things means to fundamentally alter and destroy what America is at it's heart.

Any country is whatever the people that are alive in that country want it to be. If America now wants to be a country run by a King and his yes-men, then that's what'll be.

Such a change is not necessarily a 'destruction,' just as your personality changing as you became a grown man is also not. No one destroyed your younger personality, you simply changed your likes, motivations, priorities, etc. etc.

I'll try to do better.

You and me both.

Each of us can only motivate ourselves, and use something someone else has said or done to function as the basis for our motivation. They can provide the means by which we motive ourselves, but they can't directly control our thoughts, they can only influence them.

Although, speaking from an adversarial viewpoint I suppose that - over a long period of time - one could be forcibly motivated by a constant barrage of motivational presentations, but only through the breakdown of the mental resistance to being motivated.

I believe we can be motivated by external influences. Competition is a strong motivator, for example. Wanting to make another proud is a motivator that would be absent but for the presence of 'another.' The list goes on.

True, but Einstein has a basis from which to being from. Nobody goes from not knowing math to coming up with new theories out of the blue (at least not ones that work, anyway). My point with feral children or North Korea is that there are situations where people are not provided that foundational knowledge - or are provided a bastardized form of it by way of propaganda.

The mind can think beyond its inputs. It can't do miracles. So let me now say, it can think a little beyond its inputs.

Whatever abstract knowledge or foundation is given to a human mind, it will still have the capability to either believe it fully, or not, imo.

For example, a feral child that has only been taught Christianity may still wonder, "where did God come from?" The lack of a response that that mind finds reasonable may cause that mind to reject the only religion s/he's known.

Belief and consistently acting in concert with that belief are two different things.

Ah ... we've somewhat stumbled upon the works vs faith thing.

As only God knows the heart, we can only know another by their fruits. You have to ask and answer for yourself, if someone truly believed that murder would condemn them to hell, would they commit a senseless murder?

Regardless, we can never know what's in another's mind or heart. We are relegated to using our best evidence ... actions.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

Haha - true. On these terms, it seems like we're splitting hairs, aren't we? Yes, you can't force anyone to believe anything that they don't actually believe, but you can force them to say so.

I guess my problem is this: should we even be presenting bad ideas to impressionable minds? True, we're not forcing them to believe something, but if - for example - a teacher presents a lesson on the benefits of socialism without addressing it's significant downsides and proven bad outcomes, then doesn't that false presentation lead young minds to a certain about socialism? It's true that the teacher didn't force the student to agree that socialism is a good idea, but if a teacher grades the student on their answers regarding the benefits (but not the severe consequences) of socialism then doesn't that lead the child to conclude that socialism is good?

Probably. But the child will grow up. As an adult, s/he knows not to rely upon childhood beliefs. Unicorns and pots of gold, talking mermaids and sponges, superman, wonder twins, the boogie man, everything, etc. etc.

We are taught a lot as a child, but as an adult, we confirm or deny those beliefs.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

It's lying by omission, designed to elicit a certain conclusion about socialism that is favorable to the beliefs of the teacher and/or the public school's instructional goals regarding socialism.

Yes, those in charge, get to write the history books etc.

Btw, we've both used the term, but I wanted to clarify:

An omission or false statement is not necessary a lie. Lying requires intent. The teacher in our example may be ignorant to the omission, and therefore isn't lying, even though she is omitting information. You'll have to go further up the chain to find the liar(s). Is it the author of the book? His sources? The publisher? The school board that chose the book? All of them?

I don't know if you've noticed, but many of our criminal statutes include the word "knowingly."