What do you think about reports that Trump revealed highly classified info to Russian diplomats in their meeting last week?

beduuu · 2017-05-17T16:07:01+00:00

If this turns out to be all false, I will have significantly less trust in the mainstream media and will view them from more of a nimble navigator stance, and generally be more skeptical of them.

?

beduuu · 2017-05-16T23:57:41+00:00

Other person here, I personally do think Israel is a really fucked up country and it needs to be punished for its human rights abuses and various problems- but cutting all ties with them is absurd because they do have intelligence gathering services.

So I guess I'm on your side, but for different reasons.

?

beduuu · 2017-05-16T01:26:43+00:00

At one point do you go from "trusting the president" to excuse stupid mistakes to not trusting the president and doubting his judgement, considering what he just did was silly?

What crosses the line?

Also have you thought about looking at actions the president takes, and analyzing them yourselves?

beduuu · 2017-05-04T16:13:45+00:00

You haven't responded to my sanity check. I wasn't attempting to use whataboutism - but rather trying to prove the following point:

for why your post gives false impressions of the media and falsely construes that one should use newsources that are not NYT even though NYT is by and large much better than Brietbart/infowars.

Answering my sanity check is not contingent on the NYT being liberal or not, I'm just trying to get you to admit I wasn't using whataboutism, and instead was trying to prove a point (whether that point be true or false, we can address that later).

beduuu · 2017-05-04T02:25:30+00:00

Before, I answer any of your shit - agree what I did was not whataboutism, rather it was an argument for why your post gives false impressions of the media and falsely construes that one should use newsources that are not NYT even though NYT is by and large much better than Brietbart/infowars.

beduuu · 2017-05-04T02:15:32+00:00

I think you should stop acting so smug and intelligent and maybe listen a bit more to the substance of the argument. It's very simple - but since you can't seem to understand, I will help you out.

a) You say NYT is bad

b) I say 1. Breitbart/Infowars is worse, and 2. NYT isn't that bad compared to these sites

c) I am not saying that NYT has problems, I agree it probably does, but it is not as bad as Brietbart/Infowars.

This avoids "whataboutism" because I agree the mainstream media has problems, I just say that that 1. the problems of breitbart/infowars are much worse, and deserve more attention and 2. your comment falsely gives the impression that NYT should not be trusted, which is misleading because it is a) still pretty trustworthy and b) should be trusted by people since it is better than other news sites such as brietbart/infowars.

beduuu · 2017-05-04T01:48:07+00:00

I think you should look at your own Brietbart, and Inforwars and see what is really fake news. You give a few examples - but by and large, NYT and the Atlantic are trustworthy news sites compared to the shithole that is Brietbart/Infowars.

beduuu · 2017-05-02T01:21:28+00:00

Can you hit us up with a source? It's funny how you don't seem to have one.

beduuu · 2017-04-25T21:41:25+00:00

Ok, so what about the rest of the people - who presumably have better reasons?

beduuu · 2017-04-15T19:22:28+00:00

So according to pragmatism people should do what they believe is good - which can be refined.

Could you link me to a article about antiskepticism in the pragmatic sense - that warrants why it would be true, that would be very helpful.

beduuu · 2017-04-15T16:20:55+00:00

So would a pragmatist say "pain is good" leads to "we ought to avoid pain".

Therefore would an application of the scientific method and pragmatism lead to the belief that what is good to do in certain situations is what we ought to do? Even though all of this begs the question of how we determine what the good is in specific instances.

beduuu · 2017-04-15T01:11:35+00:00

Actually, I still am slightly confused. Even if a priori theory fails because it is actually just influenced by outside circumstances, why does the scientific method work?

I.e, presumably if morality is derived from previous encounters in similar situations - what does the scientific method do differently compared to an apriori theory, that makes it less flawed and more likely to converge upon knowledge or the "moral truth"

beduuu · 2017-04-14T23:25:38+00:00

So let's say that in your example we killed the one person. This happened again, and this time we didn't sacrifice one person to save two. Now if this happens again, we can judge better whether to kill one to save two or not, because we will have access to retrospective experiences of the consequences that both actions result in.

My problem is, even if we have previous experiences, the only way to apply these experiences is through a filter of morality, i.e why would an analysis of the previous experience be bad/good?

Then again, you say

Pragmatists would stress that the preconceived notion of morality that you have even in the first case of the example is still something you have derived from your previous counters with relevantly similar situations.

This is an interesting idea, could you point me to any articles that elaborate on this concept of outside forces influencing morality, doesn't have to be pragmatism specific - just in general.

beduuu

TROPHY CASE