Trump

[David Quinn]

I’m a Zen guy who is attacking the large ego fortress that you currently hide behind.

Trump could say exactly the same thing.

Except, as we both know, Trump is a raging narcissist with no comprehension of the nature of reality.

In reality you are using personal attacks and smears because you don't have a rational argument.

As anyone who reads through this thread can attest, I have been employing rational arguments in every single one of my posts.

The fact that you hide away in unconsciousness in order not to deal with these arguments is not my concern.

Both sides trample science, about equally. You are not looking at both sides of the picture.

No reasoning or evidence is given.

That which is asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence. If you claim that the right is more anti-science than the left, without evidence, then I can simply refute it, without evidence.

I have provided numerous examples of the way in which the Trump administration and the right more generally have systematically been suppressing the practice and advocacy of science. You have offered nothing in return.

Unconscious of the corrupt nature of Trump and his criminal cronies.

That's just your personal opinion - which is meaningless.

For me, the most corrupt aspect of Trump’s character is not his rampant criminality, which is obvious for all to see. Nor is it his sadistic desire to bully those who are in a much weaker position than him, which shows just how much of a low-life he is. Nor is it his repeated attempts to whip up fear and hate in the world in order to further his political career, which degrades us all a little more every day.

No, as vile as all this is, for me the most corrupt aspect of his character is his constant willingness to gaslight other people and to deliberately mangle A=A. In other words, it is the war he daily wages on consciousness itself, done deliberately for his own egotistical ends. That, for me, is the tipping point. It is the point where his corruption descends into evil.

Perhaps this is what attracts you to him the most?

[David Quinn]

Calling people unconscious, stupid, morons, idiots, etc, and swearing at them, like Dan does, isn't going to get you anywhere.

This made me laugh. Just the hypocrisy of it. And the irony.

On the one hand, Kevin, you are clearly of the view that everyone you despise is fair game. You are perfectly happy to call them unconscious, stupid, morons, idiots, etc, without batting an eyelid. But as soon as it is directed your way, it all suddenly changes. Suddenly, you start squealing like a stuck pig.

Here is an example:

What is your opinion of Greta Thunberg?

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

For me, these remarks perfectly encapsulate the deep rot that has eaten into your soul.

I’ll expand on this further down, but first a couple of things about Greta Thunberg herself:

- If you knew anything about her, you would know that she is very much her own person. She has high-functioning Aspergers, which means her mind is unusually detached and capable of a high degree of rational thought. She is also very informed about environmental issues, having studied them for many years before her fame. It is certainly not the case that she has been coached, nor does she read things from a script.

- It is highly misleading to call her a “media creation". The publicity she enjoys nowadays are a result of her originally protesting daily by herself on the steps of Swedish parliament as an unknown schoolgirl. The fact that she kept doing it day after day was what drew attention towards her and the whole thing snowballed from there. In other words, her rise to the spotlight was organic in nature. It was not a contrived process.

Nowadays, I am glad that she is getting a lot of attention because it means that she is able to bring to the forefront an issue that deeply concerns me. I consider the publicity around her to be a good thing, not something to be ridiculed or despised.

I also like her turn of mind. For example, I liked the way she was able to speak harsh truths in a fearless manner to world leaders at the UN recently with simple, direct logic:

For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

Brilliant! I love that sort of logical discourse.

So for me at least, Greta Thunberg is a leader of her generation fighting for a great cause that concerns us all. She’s young, passionate, independent-minded and speaks the truth fearlessly to the world. She reminds me a little of how you used to be, Kevin.

What is your opinion of Greta Thunberg?

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

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

- Unbridled contempt for passion and youthful idealism.

- Brainwashing from the alt-right media. (The bit about her “reading from a script" is itself a script that has been constantly propagated over the past year by numerous alt-right lynch mobs).

- Paranoia about the liberal establishment (wherein, as per the standard alt-right playbook, every action by a liberal is deemed to be contrived and staged as a matter of course).

- Betrayal of your own past as a forester, environmentalist and philosopher concerned about the future of the species (as part of your overall slide into unconsciousness).

It is all there in these couple of remarks.

Just how unconscious you are.

Calling people unconscious, stupid, morons, idiots, etc, and swearing at them, like Dan does, isn't going to get you anywhere.

And yet here you are, murdering and obliterating a person like Greta Thunberg without even giving it a moment’s thought.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm not making any sort of argument.

I'm glad you agree that you're not making any kind of rational argument.

That response is depressingly intellectually dishonest. Just plain depressing.

It's like a Christian saying, "It is fucking well obvious that God fucking well fucking exists,

That analogy is also depressingly intellectually dishonest. No 'in plain sight' facts regarding God's existence actually, well, exist. There are innumerable in plain sight facts regarding Trump's behaviour, regardless of the post hoc spin assigned to them. Don't try to Kevsplain the rudiments of logic to me like the last time we rode this bullshit carousel.

You are expressing a mere opinion. And I think your opinion is mistaken.

Well, here's another opinion while that's all I'm apparently managing to express: You have devolved into the intellectual and ethical equivalent of the average American Evangelist who is totally willing to turn a blind eye to the reality of who Trump is for the sake of some absurd 'Accidental Hero' fantasy - only the Evangelicals are actually more sane than you at the moment because their prime goal of securing the Supreme Court and as many lifetime Federal Court appointments as possible is actually coming to pass (and you apparently don't give a crap about that), whereas your specific fantasy about Trump rescuing us from the dread Intersectionalist invasion is never going to happen.

But that's just my opinion.

[jupiviv]

I'm not making any sort of argument.

I'm glad you agree that you're not making any kind of rational argument.

That response is depressingly intellectually dishonest. Just plain depressing.

Hey Dan! You know what else is depressing?

David Quinn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:45 am
[To jupiviv]Again, the problem is the criticism you offer is incoherent, which makes it ineffective. There is nothing for me to grab hold of and respond to.

Finding words for things related to Truth is inherently a very difficult thing to do, actually, probably impossible. Yet it has to be done. This is how I see Jupiviv's posts.

Logic of causality, A=A, and related absolute, 'clean', undeniable truths that are part of your philosophy - in the eye of someone who is not enlightened - are trivialities, similar to 'your current experience is absolutely true and cannot be denied'. Actual enlightenment has to come from truly thinking through the *implications* of those truths, which is the actual, nitty gritty, brutal, (?) work of enlightenment. From that perspective, the truth of such 'absolute truths' is not so absolute anymore. The effects that some truth might have, are part of how true it is. Given all of this, the absolute truth of causality seems self contradictory. Those 'clean' truths could be used to conceal and avoid dealing with the complexities of one's personal psychology, as I think Jupiviv was getting at when he said (and I'm roughly quoting by heart, which I can do because the words made an impression on me) "Global issues are not what's keeping people from enlightenment, it's the small, personal stuff" and "Truth is the root of all evil". I think your pedantry (which isn't a minor thing in my eyes) is employed to avoid dealing with the truth (forgive me Jupiviv) / actual criticism underlying his words.

From my point of view, what jupiviv has been doing in this thread (and the other “serious" thread) is blindly spray bullets in random directions with no real idea of whether they will hit their targets or not.

There is a lot of gushing, a lot of poorly-worded sentences and phrases that are almost impossible to decipher, a lot of assumptions and fantasies about who I am and what I am about, and a lot of frustration that seems to be aimed at noone in particular. He seems to be winging it and just throwing anything he can out there in the hope that some of it might stick.

"Global issues are not what's keeping people from enlightenment, it's the small, personal stuff" and "Truth is the root of all evil" - don’t make me laugh. This is the sort of guff that Kevin and I used to put into our satirical Life and Death Magazine back in the 90s. When I composed that "Definitive Guide to Life", I used to sit down and try to squeeze out of my brain the biggest load of drivel that is humanly possible to come up with. And yet here is jupiviv repeating it almost word for word in earnest. In a “serious” conversation no less!

http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 0&start=25

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

[jupiviv]

. . . many discussions I've seen end in "look at the whole picture" or "add hundred small things together to make one big".

That's precisely what has me worried. The argument the left is currently presenting seems to be "We don't have any strong actual evidence of wrongdoing, but we have a lot of things that could be interpreted to be wrong, and if you add them all together it creates very strong circumstantial evidence."

Every time I've seen this "philosophy" applied, it has resulted in huge injustice.

You've swivelled back to the more reasonable Position A: Almost everyone is deeply deluded but they can still care about truth and reason within limited contexts, like science and politicians' lies; also reason can determine whether instances of reasoning are correct or not.

In case it isn't clear, you're saying that your favourite bogus online media outlets - even though deluded - have correctly recognised how empty all of these "left" accusations about Trump are. Except your criterion for "left" is anyone who disagrees with you about this specific issue. And the basis for calling accusations "empty" is this childishly stupid notion of what "evidence" means especially in a forensic context. According to it, a bullet hole couldn't be evidence of a bullet being fired without timecoded high-speed cam footage of it being fired and hitting the hole's exact location. Anything short of that is, to paraphrase David, blindly spraying bullets in random directions with no real idea of whether they will hit their targets or not.

A literal moron can figure this out. You clearly haven't the slightest clue what you're defending for fuck's sake, yet circular affirmation of your "opinion" and whatever supports it trumps everything else. You're an all-consuming propositional void.

[jupiviv]

Meanwhile... China, Trump and the USA have all agreed to 3 completely different trade deals. Also original/legal borders of Britain to be restored at a time-window near you. Gleefully awaiting death of imperialist liberal (later, social) democracy that bled us white for 200 years.

[David Quinn]

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

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

You clearly haven't the slightest clue what you're defending for fuck's sake, yet circular affirmation of your "opinion" and whatever supports it trumps everything else. You're an all-consuming propositional void.

A merged void, no less.

Ah, the irony.

Gleefully awaiting death of imperialist liberal (later, social) democracy that bled us white for 200 years.

It looks like you won't have long to wait. My very first thought when I heard that Trump had been elected was, "America has decided to commit suicide". But perhaps the UK will beat them to it. And Australia is not too far behind. Lemmings over a cliff.

[Pam Seeback]

David has declared that buddha's experience passion and desire, an assertion that goes against the literal meaning of nirvana which is "blowing out" or "quenching". Perhaps Dan and/or Kevin (and others) believe the same. This would certainly explain why this thread of name-calling and mud-slinging exists. Passion is after all, one of the three poisons.

[David Quinn]

David has declared that buddha's experience passion and desire, an assertion that goes against the literal meaning of nirvana which is "blowing out" or "quenching". Perhaps Dan and/or Kevin (and others) believe the same. This would certainly explain why this thread of name-calling and mud-slinging exists.

And so you thought that the best remedy for this would be to engage in some mud-slinging of your own.......?

Passion is after all, one of the three poisons.

What about passion for the truth? Is that a poison or a virtue?

[Dan Rowden]

Okay, fair enough. This is exactly what I'm trying to find out. Kevin responded to David saying that exact phrase, which I used as a starting point. But you mentioned "facts" around the coverage of Trump & "regime". To simply ask "which facts" seemed a bit too much as I know a lot has been posted including links to reporting and government inquiries. But I wanted to zoom in on exactly which exactly which undisputed facts had the strongest disagreements. And to limit the scope a bit, to see if we could select the main ones. One reason I'm asking is that right now many discussions I've seen end in "look at the whole picture" or "add hundred small things together to make one big". Now that method can work but I'd like to see if it can be put simpler with leading facts about particular things people did and not merely said or meant.

I don't know how to address those questions without invoking the broad picture, which for me is pretty much the whole point. But there's a couple of things I think should be addressed before I even begin to delineate the matters I think are most pressing and 'factual'.

Criminality: I've said elsewhere I think David's use of this word with respect to Trump is a bit problematic because, technically, Trump is not a criminal, and the use of the term allows people like Kevin to dismiss the larger point being made on the basis of this 'technicality'.

However, as a rhetorical device in a largely vernacular discussion the label strikes me as perfectly legitimate. In many other nations/jurisdictions he'd be in jail over the University fraud and the recent Charity scam - among other things. In America such matters are treated as civil cases unless the fraud involves the government. It's incredibly convenient for the wealthy. And, I mean, are we really saying that no-one should ever have characterised Al Capone as a criminal before he was convicted of something? Are we really doing that?

Corruption: This is a somewhat problematic area for us given the subjective, contextual nature of how we wish to perceive and/or define 'corruption'. If there's insufficient overlap of perception as to what does and does not constitute corruption by a POTUS and the elected and unelected officials around them, there's probably not much point in this discussion.

But let's toss a few around:

Nepotism: Federal law 5 U.S. Code § 3110

Conflict of Interest: This is, of course, an utterly massive area of overt corruption on the part of Trump, his family, his Cabinet and the GOP more generally. Trump is, in full view, profiting - and profiteering - off his Presidency in a staggering fashion. Again, one may not care about such matters or consider it to be a case of corrupt behaviour - that's all well and good but this is exactly one of those cases of 'fact' I'm referring to. There is no denying it's happening.

It would take me endless pages to outline all the ways in which it is, but the bare fact of it stares us in the face. And it started happening almost immediately.

# A few days after the election Kuwait canceled a planned event at the Four Seasons Hotel. It instead held the event at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. There are numerous examples of this sort of thing.

# As of May 2018 the Secret Service has paid $175,000 for the hire of golf carts at two Trump golf courses. Just for golf carts.

# There are at least 2 pending Emoluments Clause cases. Whatever the technical legal outcome of those, the dynamic surrounding them are clear.

# Visits to Trump properties by government officials, 1,594. Events held at Trump properties,193. Promotion of Trump properties by White House officials,323. Foreign trademarks granted to Trump brands, 63. Miscellaneous official interactions with the Trump Organization, 555.

# President Trump's trips to Trump-brand properties: All properties, 406. Golf, 245. International, 6.

# There has been in the order of 110 visits by Gov't officials to Trump properties. Trump has publicly promoted his business around 240 times, and that's not counting how many other officials have also done so. Trump literally refers to Mar-a-Lago as the winter White House. Blurring the lines between Government and his business empire may seem altogether innocent to some, but for me they are transparently stupid people.

# Kelly-Anne Conway has breached the Hatch Act so many damn times Special Counsel Henry J Kerner felt compelled to write an official letter of complaint to the White House. It was ignored. She's not the only one to have violated the Act but she's certainly the main culprit. But again, I concede some people might not give a flying shit. The GOP certainly doesn't - at least not when it's one of theirs doing it.

# More than 164 former lobbyists work in the administration, including the EPA's Andrew Wheeler and now help oversee industries for which they worked - or more importantly, have a financial interest.

# Trump suggested Prime Minister Shinzo Abe grant a coveted operating license to a casino company owned by Sheldon Adelson, who donated at least $20 million to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Anyway, this could go on forever. Conflict of interest matters hang over Trump and this Administration like a giant cloud of laundered bank-notes. But again, you may not care.

Robert Mueller outlined multiple ways in which Trump has obstructed justice. While he did not go forward with an indictment on the basis of DoJ advice that a sitting POTUS could not be indicted, he nevertheless made it clear that an alternative remedy existed - Congressional Indictment, indicating that sufficient substance for an indictment exists.

Oh, and I ought not forget that the Southern District of New York is waiting patiently for Trump's reign as Patron Saint of the Paranoiac to end so they can indict him as co-conspirator in the Cohen case. You may remember him in this matter as 'Individual 1'. God knows what other State level indictments are sitting ready to go. Grand Juries must be a terrifying thing for a man like Trump (as an aside I'm not sure I like it that such things actually exist).

The Mueller report also contains manifold ongoing investigations the results of which are yet to be seen. But there was a lot of redactions. And let's not forget the ongoing Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas drama. One of them, and likely both, are headed for jail. How much that drama falls back on Trump is yet to be determined, but it won't be pretty.

So, basically what we're seeing here is a general theme of absolute disregard for multiple, basic and important principles of democracy, and frankly a blatant disregard for democracy itself. We're seeing overt kleptocracy, blatant neo-fascism (which admittedly has been a thing in the US for ages), nepotism of the most errant and arrant kind.

But, hey, none of this may constitute 'corruption' for you, which essentially means corruption doesn't exist. Or perhaps you recognise it as such but are willing to ignore it for the sake of some grand, higher purpose. My issue with that is said higher purpose rests on the mentality and activities of a man who doesn't like power-saving light bulbs because they make him look too orange.

That is your Accidental Hero. Good luck with that.

[Dan Rowden]

David has declared that buddha's experience passion and desire, an assertion that goes against the literal meaning of nirvana which is "blowing out" or "quenching". Perhaps Dan and/or Kevin (and others) believe the same. This would certainly explain why this thread of name-calling and mud-slinging exists. Passion is after all, one of the three poisons.

Actually I don't think anyone is 'mud-slinging'. I would suggest all of us are offering our various judgements with genuine and serious intent, including yourself, even if at times some of it might best be rendered in sarcasm-font.

[Dan Rowden]

And the basis for calling accusations "empty" is this childishly stupid notion of what "evidence" means especially in a forensic context. According to it, a bullet hole couldn't be evidence of a bullet being fired without timecoded high-speed cam footage of it being fired and hitting the hole's exact location.

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

Consistently applying that paradigm to matters empirical would leave us unable to make any judgments whatever. We could never identify any form of corruption and no person could ever be indicted for any crime at any time. This is because at any stage in such deliberations that paradigm could be invoked. He really should write to the White House and explain this approach to them. He'd likely land a very well-paid job. Oh, wait, he'd probably have to push Kellyanne Conway under a bus first, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do ....

I honestly wish Kevin would just concede Trump's general unfitness for the position and his and others' corrupt practices (and I might note that the said corrupt practices are a matter of scale rather than precedent) and admit he's willing to overlook all of that for the sake of achieving higher purpose 'X'. Then we could move on to discussing the merits of the notion that Trump and his administration are remotely capable of that achievement, even by accident.

Or perhaps Kevin's view is that Trump and his administration will achieve his desired ends not through their own acts or their own consciousness, but by simple default - i.e. by them not being the other mob.

For me 'does it matter' would be a far more honest and constructive way to move forward rather than this strange 'is it even happening' dialectic. It feels like we're going to be forever stuck debating the crowd numbers at Trump's inauguration and whether Trump was bullshitting about it.

[Dan Rowden]

Just for the hell of it, for academic interest only, let's imagine an actual Trump Dynasty takes hold of the White House and the USA.

A paradigm in which Paula White hosts regular kumbaya sessions in the West Wing (already happening), where the Trump business empire is indistinguishable from government and effectively an extension of the Executive, where the GOP has taken control of Congress and laws against nepotism and ethics statutes against conflict of interest are abolished, where Red State gerrymandering and voter suppression goes unchecked to the point that it is impossible for the Democrats to attain either House or the Presidency, where changes to the Constitution, such as the twenty-second Amendment or any related to Presidential elections are readily passable - i.e. where a virtual Dictatorship may be enacted and Trump remains in office as long as he pleases, or so long as it pleases the GOP, where Ivanka Trump is the first female POTUS, where Evangelical Pastors have a direct say in facets of legislation across government, where Betsy DeVos directs 90% of education funding to Charter Schools with whom she retains a large financial interest, where Creationism and Intelligent Design are taught as competing theories in schools, where corporations and fossil fuel companies dictate environmental legislation, where consumer protections laws are whittled away to nothing (already happening), where Federal courts across the nation have become predominantly populated by right-wing, Christian judges (with lifetime appointments), where Roe v Wade has been overturned and Family Planning outlawed in most States and abortion criminalised, where the military and organisations like Blackwater are freely allowed to enforce civil laws alongside police forces, where open-carry is the norm, where blasphemy laws are imposed on entire populations and atheists are banned from public office of all kinds, where homosexuality is criminalised, where the jailing of ethnic minorities for reasons of commercial profit becomes the norm (already ostensibly happening), where tertiary education fees become prohibitively expensive for all but the top 10%, where the basic wage is reduced even further and Debtor Prison prohibitions are lifted, where anti-discrimination statutes are relaxed or abandoned and doctors can refuse treatment because you're gay or an atheist, where Flat Earth organisations are given government grants because they're 'alternate science', where efforts to reduce carbon emissions are abandoned, where websites like Thinking Man's Minefield are placed on the NSA's terrorist watch-list, where journalists are arrested and Fox News officially becomes the American Pravda .... etc etc etc ....

Now, tell me how scary leftists are again? Think the above scenario is a stretch? Most of it is already in train and will only be stopped by the efforts of those dread leftists.

[jupiviv]

David has declared that buddha's experience passion and desire, an assertion that goes against the literal meaning of nirvana which is "blowing out" or "quenching".

The Buddha is constantly reincarnating in billions of human beings, and the vast majority of them experience emotions. Why are you drawing inherent distinctions between the Buddha's mind and everyone else's?

[jupiviv]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jupiviv]

What is your opinion of Greta Thunberg?

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

For me, these remarks perfectly encapsulate the deep rot that has eaten into your soul.

I’ll expand on this further down, but first a couple of things about Greta Thunberg herself:

- If you knew anything about her, you would know that she is very much her own person. She has high-functioning Aspergers, which means her mind is unusually detached and capable of a high degree of rational thought. She is also very informed about environmental issues, having studied them for many years before her fame. It is certainly not the case that she has been coached, nor does she read things from a script.

It's almost like you're trying to fill a void in your mind previously occupied by a palpable idol (idyll?) of "rationality" you could rely on when confused or scared. It'd be cute if it wasn't so sad.

[Dan Rowden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Solway]

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

Many people would say the same thing about you. Casting aspersions about people isn't going to get you anywhere.

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

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

Definitely not.

I have provided numerous examples of the way in which the Trump administration . . .

Like I said previously, you also need to look at the other side of the picture. If you want to compare the two sides of politics then you also need to look at how the left is fighting against science.

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

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

[Kevin Solway]

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

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

- Unbridled contempt for passion and youthful idealism.

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

numerous alt-right lynch mobs

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

Betrayal of your own past as a forester, environmentalist and philosopher concerned about the future of the species

That is completely irrational. Just because I don't find Greta Thunburg particularly interesting doesn't have any connection to what I think about the environment.

murdering and obliterating a person like Greta Thunberg

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

[Kevin Solway]

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

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

This would certainly explain why this thread of name-calling and mud-slinging exists. Passion is after all, one of the three poisons.

Perhaps the "Wordly matters" forum should have two further sub-forums, one being "Name calling, swearing, and abuse" and another being "Political propaganda".

[Kevin Solway]

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

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

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

Your specific fantasy about Trump rescuing us from the dread Intersectionalist invasion is never going to happen.

I don't imagine that Trump will do any such thing, but he does provide a temporary hindrance to the insanity of the SJWs, feminists, and Marxists.

Don't try to Kevsplain the rudiments of logic to me

I'm explaining the fallacious logic mainly to the reading audience, in the case that you won't appreciate it.

[Kevin Solway]

I don't know how to address those questions without invoking the broad picture

When you say "invoking" I think you are saying "painting" or "conjuring up".

For this reason, and like Diebert, I'd like to know the main, specific facts.

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

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

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

How many hundreds of millions of dollars did the Clintons make when they were public servants? Were you complaining about corruption at that time?

This one is hard to take seriously.

It would take me endless pages to outline all the ways . . .

Two sentences would be enough for two main facts.

Robert Mueller outlined multiple ways in which Trump has obstructed justice.

Don't forget that you are supposed to be telling us "facts". Did Mueller say that Trump obstructed justice? Yes or no.

If you answer "Yes", then provide an exact quote. I think you'll find that Mueller never said any such thing. You are making it up.

. . . indicating that sufficient substance for an indictment exists.

No, that's you're interpretation. Provide an exact quote. These are supposed to be facts, not interpretations.

Grand Juries must be a terrifying thing for a man like Trump

Is this another one of your main "facts"? This is mere speculation. Wishful thinking I would say.

blatant disregard for democracy itself.

Is this another one of your main "facts" that all rational people agree on? It sounds like a mere opinion to me.

[Dan Rowden]

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

Many people would say the same thing about you. Casting aspersions about people isn't going to get you anywhere.

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

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

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

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

Kevin: Definitely not.

Argumentum ab auctoritate. Prove your authority. Or is this just one of those meaningless opinions you constantly harp about, as if that were a substitute for, you know, a point?

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

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

Bullshit. Mueller did not indict on matters of OoJ on DoJ advice that he could not. Your willingness to ignore the meaning of his references to an alternative [Constitutional] remedy just add weight to the perception that you don't care about reality in this matter (or that you're not paying sufficient attention for your OPINION to mean anything).

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

[Dan Rowden]

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

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

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

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

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thanks Dan, for the effort writing it all down! It's more than I expect these days.

I don't know how to address those questions without invoking the broad picture, which for me is pretty much the whole point.

Since invoking "broad pictures" appeals to a deeper sense or intuition, there's also the increasing possibility that all the painting and coloring is more feelings based than merely factual. So I believe we should be careful with these kind of wider vistas.

In America such matters are treated as civil cases unless the fraud involves the government. It's incredibly convenient for the wealthy. And, I mean, are we really saying that no-one should ever have characterised Al Capone as a criminal before he was convicted of something?

It seems that you are changing the topic to the US legal system as a whole to be at fault in some way, to be corrupt or encouraging corruption. While this might be the case, I'd only want to point out that you're widening the goal posts. One of these goal posts was fact, like if a crime was committed, with a crime being defined by the criminal code of a country. Your argument leans on some imagined universal sense of lawfulness.

If there's insufficient overlap of perception as to what does and does not constitute corruption by a POTUS and the elected and unelected officials around them, there's probably not much point in this discussion.

Are you saying corruption is in the eye of the beholder and facts are too hard to come by? That might be but for impeachment we might set the bar a bit higher, perhaps? To make sure impeachment procedures will not be abused by collective partisan hysteria.

It seems that you didn't supply two of three things, as to focus on the main disagreements instead of fighting each other's phantoms and ghosts. But I'll address some of the things you named. Feel free to ask me to address others if those are elevated to main concerns and global worries. Mind you that I'm not at all interested in defending each and every action of some foreign government. My intention is to find out if we'd should worry.

"Nepotism: Federal law 5 U.S. Code § 3110 "

The president’s office is no executive agency. There's also sufficient precedence of presidents even after Kennedy hiring family and friends for unpaid tasks or advisory positions. The legal cover for this is the 1978 Appointments Clause, part of US Constitution, which empowers the President to appoint certain level of public officials. This is a case where there's legal ambiguity. In other words, we're not in the world of fact or certainty. For Trump to surround himself with family members is worrying for whole other reasons.

Trump is, in full view, profiting - and profiteering - off his Presidency in a staggering fashion. Again, one may not care about such matters or consider it to be a case of corrupt behaviour - that's all well and good but this is exactly one of those cases of 'fact' I'm referring to. There is no denying it's happening.

This is a bit vague. Do you have a reference to any hard numbers on this? Most former presidents got pretty wealthy after their tenure with the many speaking arrangements, book deals etc. In any case, Trump did not seem to lack wealth before he started the job so you need to be a bit more convincing evidence on how much he would gain exactly. Mind you, even before the last election I already wrote about the same idea and in the following post I even provided some reference, something you still need to begin with. These links are provided to preempt the usual charge that anyone disagreeing is some Trump supporting, alt-right, racist idiot. In my case, I think I'm just a few miles ahead in the discussion.

A few days after the election Kuwait canceled a planned event at the Four Seasons Hotel. It instead held the event at the Trump International Hotel in Washington.

Unproven according to Snoopes.

# As of May 2018 the Secret Service has paid $175,000 for the hire of golf carts at two Trump golf courses. Just for golf carts.

Considering the total golf expenses during the presidency so far (over 100 million?) that seems peanuts. What I read in a Quartz article is that part of the expenses were modifications by security requirement for the carts to go faster than 5 mph. But nevertheless, Trump's golf obsession is not the same as "fraudulent". Checking a site like presidentialgolftracker.com, it would be a lot but not historically that unusual.

It seems that your personal ethics are speaking again. Not a "fact" that means anything inside this discussion, It counts as not even a tiny bit.

Trump suggested Prime Minister Shinzo Abe grant a coveted operating license to a casino company owned by Sheldon Adelson, who donated at least $20 million to Trump’s presidential campaign.

All reports mention also MGM or Wynn Resorts were suggested in the same conversation, which kind of weakens the charge. That one former casino operator would be "allied" with other major casino operators is to be expected. Some might say Trump was promoting the glorious glittering US economy [blegh!].

Robert Mueller outlined multiple ways in which Trump has obstructed justice.

The report concluded that it could not "exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice". You are simply changing the meaning? He leaves it up to others to flesh out potential cases of obstruction. It remains a matter of interpretation then? Leaving it to politicians to decide is not a smart thing and you can see already that views are largely divided among partisan lines. Not a good sign for the hard world of fact to be involved.
--

I'm not going to examine all of your points, as I asked for the quality, one or two main points. Not a swamp nobody has time to reply to. It's important to establish exactly what it is that you're claiming or where you think there is some disagreement about. The topic is not "do you support, reject, love or hate president Trump and all he stands for". Many participants in this discussion have always been critical on politics, local and foreign. Not to mention that tendency of the human being to be ignorant and deceitful, as individual or in large groups. This is a philosophy forum after all, and proving there's something wrong with people or their governments is not exactly shocking.

So, basically what we're seeing here is a general theme of absolute disregard for multiple, basic and important principles of democracy, and frankly a blatant disregard for democracy itself. We're seeing overt kleptocracy, blatant neo-fascism (which admittedly has been a thing in the US for ages), nepotism of the most errant and arrant kind.

Unlike you perhaps, I've never had much hope for government, its agencies or mainstream reporting to be fair, wise or democratic in nature. Perhaps that's the difference? It's not like I see no major issues with Trump but I also see these in how other parties operate. Two evils opposing each other do not make one good. The recent Horowitz report on the FBI and Russian collusion theories is interesting as it shows at the very least grave incompetence which might have lead to completely unnecessarily undermining of an already struggling fish-out-of-water but still elected president. Why this doesn't worry someone who talks about "principles of democracy" is puzzling. In any case, perhaps we're starting to face the truth that democracy died a long while back.

That is your Accidental Hero. Good luck with that.

To suggest that people who are disagreeing are somehow automatically supportive or worshiping Trump is simply dishonest, Dan. Unreasonable, illogical, highly charged and completely ridiculous sounding. And with that also very interesting that people massively fall for that vicious game while really believing they are "right" , "good", "honest" or striving for justice or fairness of any kind. Newsflash: you are not and you should investigate this need to attack and dismiss. What are you protecting here, really? Some personal faith?