The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[jamil]

First, +1 for an implied endorsement of the Hegelian dialectic.



That's kinda where I am.

I'm not sure what incremental benefit the wall will have in security (our border security really isn't in too bad a shape now IMHO) for the cost of it. But, I do know that the cost is getting more and more expensive with the gov't shutdown rooted in the issue.

No matter which side is at fault (really, both), a direct line has been drawn between this government shutdown and that wall. Those costs become sunk costs for the wall itself.

I was serious about the dialectic, but I was joking about the likelihood that two deterministic inputs could synthesize an accurate output. That outcome requires both sides to make honest and reasoned arguments. If the arguments are politically motivated (which means they're likely deterministic), I doubt the arguments from opposing sides would be accepted by the other as honest and reasoned. Both sides would be more interested in proving their side is right than resolving the differences between the two, accepting that their own position may be wrong.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, but any mention of "dialectic" should get at LEAST a +1.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, but any mention of "dialectic" should get at LEAST a +1.

Well, thanks. I appreciate that.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, thanks. I appreciate that.

Sure... but ... uh... you know an internet +1 isn't really worth much more than the pixels upon which it resides, right?

 

[mmpsteve]

The progressive side makes two arguments. One: the insufficient-ROI argument, which I said was a valid argument--that doesn't mean it's a true argument, just that it's valid. The truth part is yet unknown with certainty. Two: that it's immoral. This is a silly emotional argument which no reasonable person would consider.

Rationally, an argument is only valid if it is True, or accurate. You can have a valid concept or you can have a valid question or theory. But it's not a valid argument unless it is also true.

.

 

[BigRed]

This thread needs more Salma.

View attachment 73921


There

 

[jamil]

Rationally, an argument is only valid if it is True, or accurate. You can have a valid concept or you can have a valid question or theory. But it's not a valid argument unless it is also true.

.

Not true. In logic, an argument is valid if it is such that the conclusion follows from the premise. For example, the following is a bit of a tautology, but it's relevant and useful.

Given that there is only the consideration of ROI, if there is not a ROI, the wall is not worth the cost of building it.

If the premise is true, that there IS NOT a ROI and ROI is the only consideration, then the conclusion is also true. The conclusion follows the premise.

If the premise is false, that there actually IS a ROI, the conclusion is then false. Again the conclusion logically follows the premise.

Therefore the argument is valid, because the argument is stated such that the conclusion, true or false, can be derived from the premise, regardless whether the premise is true or false.

The other argument against the wall is the emotional. Consider:

Depriving immigrants free access to our system is immoral, therefore the wall is immoral.

It's impossible to determine whether the premise is true or not. Who says they're entitled to free access to our system? It's an emotional appeal from which a conclusion that logically follows is not possible.
So that's not a valid argument. Of course that doesn't mean that the conclusion is always false. It's more like a divide by zero error. The conclusion is undefined.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Being discussed in another thread. Cant remember which one. Buzzfeed also said they had no evidence to back the claims. Imagine that

Edit with link to Buzzfeed admitting they have no evidence to claims.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/buzzfee...-not-seen-the-evidence-supporting-our-report/

Is it fair to ask if Trump supporters should care it if was true, and back up with evidence? I mean, at least to me, a president telling a person to lie to Congress seems like a BIG deal, but I'm not especially confident that it would be amongst his supporters, who IMO would inevitably brush it off.

 

[d.kaufman]

Is it fair to ask if Trump supporters should care it if was true, and back up with evidence? I mean, at least to me, a president telling a person to lie to Congress seems like a BIG deal, but I'm not especially confident that it would be amongst his supporters, who IMO would inevitably brush it off.

The lies that the mainstream media spew, gives me zero confidence that this holds any water, and by their own admission they have no factual evidence.

Is it fair to ask that they refrain from publishing stories that are based in zero facts. Until they have actual facts, which i doubt will come to light, i just ignore. Why ponder the "what if it was true" Seems counter productive to me

 

[Hawkeye]

I got so much clout that the mere reference of me, can be used as an insult. Lol

Ha!

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Is it fair to ask if Trump supporters should care it if was true, and back up with evidence? I mean, at least to me, a president telling a person to lie to Congress seems like a BIG deal, but I'm not especially confident that it would be amongst his supporters, who IMO would inevitably brush it off.

Yes, sir. If it can be proven that Trump encouraged or even forced someone to knowingly lie to Congress, I've got serious issues with that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes, sir. If it can be proven that Trump encouraged or even forced someone to knowingly lie to Congress, I've got serious issues with that.

Thank you. I appreciate the response.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yes, sir. If it can be proven that Trump encouraged or even forced someone to knowingly lie to Congress, I've got serious issues with that.

Agreed. I would have a problem with it. The buzzfeed story has serious holes in it though, so for now, I don't lend it any credence. You know what would be nice? It would be nice if these "journalists" making such serious claims of wrongdoing were forced to testify under oath that their claims were true, and present evidence to support their claims. As it is, they have about as much gravitas as LGS "stories" about the LTCH going away. It's all "We heard blah, blah, blah..." Oh yeah? Where did you hear that? "From some guy."

 

[jbombelli]

Is it fair to ask if Trump supporters should care it if was true, and back up with evidence? I mean, at least to me, a president telling a person to lie to Congress seems like a BIG deal, but I'm not especially confident that it would be amongst his supporters, who IMO would inevitably brush it off.

If it's true I would have a problem with it. But our news media has put me in a position from which I cannot trust anything they say. I can't even trust evidence they put forth to bolster their stories, so many times have they faked things.

I can't even trust the FBI, what with their BS dossiers, and partisanship, or someone testifying under oath in Congress, because of the many times they've paraded liars through their halls.

In short I'm not likely to believe this without some major convincing. And I mean MAJOR convincing.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If it's true I would have a problem with it. But our news media has put me in a position from which I cannot trust anything they say. I can't even trust evidence they put forth to bolster their stories, so many times have they faked things.

I can't even trust the FBI, what with their BS dossiers, and partisanship, or someone testifying under oath in Congress, because of the many times they've paraded liars through their halls.

In short I'm not likely to believe this without some major convincing. And I mean MAJOR convincing.

Exactly...

 

[BugI02]

Yeah. There's quite a bit of evidence that Trump does believe in many of the things he wants to do. As I said, it's not because he's a conservative. But I do think his heart is in it with the border issue. Also with trade. He's been preaching all that stuff for years before he decided to actually run.

And actually, I think the only logical argument against the wall IS the cost issue. I agree that the politicians who were once on record approving border barriers who now are using the cost issue, are probably just being political. They don't want Trump to have a victory.

But about the cost, it's expensive beyond the proof that it will be worth the money. It seems to come down exactly across political lines which side you're on there. Which makes it largely deterministic. I don't know if it would be worth the cost. I suspect it could be. There's a fair argument either way, but since the current opinions appear to be deterministic, I can't say I trust either.

Here is 3173 again. The part that I highlighted I took as a statement of your belief in the matter, thus I attempted to make a counter argument using available information from the internet. When I started, I actually didn't know what I would find but I considered it unlikely that you were right. I reviewed FAIRs methodology and sources of information and decided to go with their numbers for what was arguably the most important datum for the case. I was then able to find government numbers for action at the border and the effectiveness of a not representational section of the wall perhaps (since it is urban) but at least some hard numbvers from which to extrapolate. I couldn't get gov't numbers on wall sections in sparsely populated or desert areas because we haven't built any yet. The sketchiest number was number of illegals already in the US. There are no hard numbers, so I used a range of numbers from several sources.

For a quick and dirty calculation, I have a reasonable degree of confidence that it is in the ballpark. When you say that I was already a believer in the wall you were correct, but if you think that is sufficient call to question my calculations I must disagree. Believing that, when it seemed you said I should also make the best argument against the wall, my first reaction was you should lay off the sauce. I have no interest in bolstering an argument I disagree with, this isn't debate club. If, as now seems the case, you were calling for [STRIKE]the Russians to release the emails if they had them[/STRIKE] someone else to give the other side of the argument, I withdraw my objection

 

[d.kaufman]

Thank you. I appreciate the response.

Even Mueller is shooting down this "news" release

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/18/robert-muellers-office-shoots-down-buzzfeeds-cohen/

 

[mmpsteve]

Not true. In logic, an argument is valid if it is such that the conclusion follows from the premise. For example, the following is a bit of a tautology, but it's relevant and useful.

Given that there is only the consideration of ROI, if there is not a ROI, the wall is not worth the cost of building it.

If the premise is true, that there IS NOT a ROI and ROI is the only consideration, then the conclusion is also true. The conclusion follows the premise.

If the premise is false, that there actually IS a ROI, the conclusion is then false. Again the conclusion logically follows the premise.

Therefore the argument is valid, because the argument is stated such that the conclusion, true or false, can be derived from the premise, regardless whether the premise is true or false.

The other argument against the wall is the emotional. Consider:

Depriving immigrants free access to our system is immoral, therefore the wall is immoral.

It's impossible to determine whether the premise is true or not. Who says they're entitled to free access to our system? It's an emotional appeal from which a conclusion that logically follows is not possible.
So that's not a valid argument. Of course that doesn't mean that the conclusion is always false. It's more like a divide by zero error. The conclusion is undefined.

Sounds like a lot of book learnin to me. If the premise is wrong, any argument to support it is invalid, on it's face.

.

 

[nonobaddog]

That fake propaganda from buzzfeed sure got a lot of panties wet in hollywood. (And got a few people here too.)

https://www.blabber.buzz/conservati...rt&utm_medium=c-alrt-email&utm_term=c-alrt-GI

 

[jamil]

Sounds like a lot of book learnin to me. If the premise is wrong, any argument to support it is invalid, on it's face.

.

Well, perhaps the “book learnin” isn’t moonshine.

Seriously though, you’re thinking that valid and true mean the same things, likely because they’re often used interchangeably in every-day speaking. When I said the argument is valid, I meant that in the logical sense, that the conclusion follows the premise. What that means is, the conclusion’s true or false state can be derived from the premise. So in the example I gave, if there the wall saves more than it cost (ROI=true) the conclusion is reliable that it was worth the expense. The converse is similar. If it cost more than it saved (ROI=false), the conclusion that it’s not worth the expense is reliable.

That’s in contrast to the other argument made agaimst the wall, that it’s immoral. Well, that’s unfalsifiable. You can’t really test that. Who gets to decide what’s immoral? And which moral are we applying? It’s not that a moral argument can’t be falsified. It does mean the moral applied must be objective enough to be testable, which makes a valid moral argument confined to testable moral standards. Murder is an example of an objective moral.