There are no facts, only interpretations.
Some may be better than others, some may come from better places than others, but there is no absolute.
The MSM has proven to be extremely biased, hyper-partisan.
We oughta supplement it with independent experience, research and thinking, or vice versa.
I’m not sure, but I think it was even admitted in the MSM they dismissed it largely offhand, without giving it much, if any chance, despite how much support it had from republicans.
That’s the issue, you’re unsure of a lot of things, you admittedly “haven’t looked into it much.”
It’s not a very interesting foundation on which to engage.
But you’re not sure the contrary is true, are you?
How thoroughly have you examined the evidence for yourself?
Are you sure the supreme court did a thorough investigation of the matter before ruling it out?
Or did they barely give it the time of day?
Perhaps they feared civil war and being hunted down by the establishment and their goons, maybe that’s the real reason they rejected it.
I’m sure the contrary is very unlikely. You speak from ignorance, then project it onto others.
I’m not here to think for you. I have done the research, I have looked at the evidence. Part of that process involved me gaining a better understanding of the U.S. Constitution, reading the court decisions, listening to the “testimony” of those who claim there was wrongdoing, and the various responses from GOP Congressmen and Trump & associates.
Meanwhile, I suspect you sit on your flabby pancake ass, drinking in bitchute videos and OANN, thinking you’re forming an educated opinion after looking exclusively at propaganda and rhetoric, putting your trust in others to have done the research before sharing their opinion with you.
How close does that come to reality?
That’s how these things always seem to unfold.
Were those who stormed the Capitol terrorists or patriots?
Well, we are all in the same boat here.
First, we have to acknowledge the gap between what we think that we know about it and all that there is to be known about it. The gap between an omniscient understanding of it and that more or less tiny fraction of knowledge that we have of it “here and now”. Going back to all there is to be known about the existence of existence itself. How does our own infinitesimally puny speck of existence here figure into the really, really, [b]really[/b] Big Questions.
Now my argument is that we take out of questions like this what we first put into them: our “self”.
If the existential trajectory of our lives went in one direction we call them terrorists, if in another direction we call them patriots. But for those of an authoritarian bent, what matters is not so much what they are but that they are either one or the other. They need to believe that the answer is within our reach.
After all, that’s where, psychologically, the comfort and the consolation lie. In knowing that we are right and they are wrong. Thus, even if the bad guys win, it doesn’t make them less wrong.
And we will never know for sure.
To say “we are all in the same boat here” demonstrates a blatant disregard, or at least disparate treatment, of what should be considered “facts” and “evidence” for most of us.
What is your statement exactly, the assertion that no commonly shared facts or knowledge about the universe is possible?
I suppose in some obscure philosophical realm that is an interesting discussion, but IMO has little practical relevance to the reality most of us have to co-exist in.
What, like those who call them terrorists or those who call them patriots don’t have their own collections of facts and evidence to “prove” their point?
No, instead, what I focus on is what I construe to be the fact that there is a “gap between what we think that we know about it and all that there is to be known about it.”
And the fact that “if the existential trajectory of our lives went in one direction we call them terrorists, if in another direction we call them patriots.”
And that, “for those of an authoritarian bent, what matters is not so much what they are but that they are either one or the other. They need to believe that the answer [itself] is within our reach.”
Finally, I broach the extent to which this…
…is or is not a reasonable assessment of what transpires when those I deem to be political objectivists attempt to establish if in fact they are either terrorists or patriots.
Based on the arguments that I make in my signature threads.
If you are claiming is that an individual who is raised as a child in Iraq has the same kind of facts to establish that the U.S. is a terrorist country, from their perspective, as Americans had to establish Iraq as a terrorist country, then I agree. I don’t find that claim to be very interesting, or controversial, except perhaps to the dimwitted.
But your argument also seems to be ad ignorantiam: there are limits to how close we can come to “reality;” therefore, “those who call them terrorists or those who call them patriots…have their own collections of facts and evidence to “prove” their point?”
If one places any importance to defining terms before engaging in an earnest argument, and I would argue one should, the one cannot have “their own collection of facts,” in this scenario.
No, my focus is more on what can be established as objectively true in regard to “the storming of the Capitol Building”. Facts in the either/or world. And then how those actual objective facts are used by liberals and conservatives here in order to establish what is said to be true about those who participated: do the facts make them terrorists or patriots?
What might be “universally true” here? Truth in regard to “I” in the is/ought world. The objectivists here embrace with I construe to be political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.
As discussed by me in the OP here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
And here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
And especially here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
Yes, I understand that. And “for all practical purposes” it’s no small point. But there it is all the same: the staggering gap between “I” here and now and an understanding of existence itself.
Something instead of nothing. This something and not another something. We don’t even know for certain if we possess the free will to sustain this exchange other than in how nature compels it to be.
It would be like reading a single page of the King James Bible and attempting to grasp the meaning of Christianity. Or the meaning of God?
Only given this…
…the full extent of our ignorance probably can’t even be put into words.
Iambigious says:
"is or is not a reasonable assessment of what transpires when those I deem to be political objectivists attempt to establish if in fact they are either terrorists or patriots.
Based on the arguments that I make in my signature threads.
[/quote]
,
,
[/quote]
Yes , based on that. But is that sufficiently causal, to conform to basis improbably sufficient within Your signature thread ?
Tell that to these folks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualtie … e_Iraq_War
The fact is the powers that be in both America and in Iraq were able to indoctrinate millions of their own citizens not only to believe that the terrorists could be named but that their own name for them was in fact the objective truth.
Just as to the extent to which political forces in America are able to convince citizens that those who stormed the Capitol were either terrorists or patriots, brand new “actions” can be planned and carried out.
Or are you but one more poster here who is able to pin down the dimwits. Those who don’t think as you do about the assault on the Capitol. The fulminating fanatics on the right as I call them.
No, my own argument here revolves more around this:
And the extent to which in regard to this and to every other example of “conflicting goods” my own “I” is “fractured and fragmented”.
All I can do therefore is to search out those who do not think and feel this way in regard to their own moral and political value judgments. One of them might actually allow me to yank myself up out of the hole I’m in.
And you don’t think the majority are dimwitted, or at the very least, uneducated in critical thought?
Yes I’ve noticed you keep referring back to your “fractured and fragmented” state, and referring back to the threads you’ve created in your signature to justify your position. So you’ll have to forgive my skepticism that you aren’t already too deep in your own hole to be pulled out.
Admittedly I have little interest, based on what you’ve said so far to go and actually explore your line of argumentation, especially given that you’ve already disregarded my point about your argument ad ignorantiam, or the importance of defining terms. Will you simply be referring any critique to your comments back to your signature posts?
In some sense, it seems what you are saying is:
“Welp, one man’s peaceful protest is another man’s breaking and entering!”
Is that a mischaracterization?
I was just asking you an honest question, not a rhetorical one.
I haven’t done much research on the 2020 election, I didn’t look into mainstream, or alternative info much, so I don’t have a strong opinion either way, my hunch is that it was stolen, because establishment democrats are pieces of shit, it would be in keeping with what I do know about them.
Actually, I prefer to focus more on the moral and political objectivists who are intelligent, educated and think critically. Take any “ism” – God or No God – and you can find any number of sophisticated arguments able to be made.
Arguments for and against capitalism. For and against socialism. For and against abortion. For and against gun control. And right down the line.
I just focus more on how those arguments are rooted in a particular world understood in a particular way given the points I raise on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
What makes them objectivists [to me] is their belief that one can be in sync with a Real Me able to be in sync with the Right Thing To Do.
On the other hand, my reaction to the “fulminating fanatics” here is more in the way of entertainment. Making fools out of them as it were. You know, if they are fools. And not just them being fools to me.
Again, all I can do is to ask those who do not feel drawn and quartered in regard to their own moral and political value judgments, to explain to me why they are not. Most of course cite one or another objectivist font – God, political ideology, deontology, nature etc.
And then there is Karpel Tunnel. Like me, he does not believe in either God or objective morality. Instead, he predicates his own reaction to the Capitol Building assault to a “visceral intuitive, deep-down-inside-me” Self. But he refused to situate this out in the world for me. And now he’s left ILP.
Fine, that’s your prerogative. Do what you construe to be in your own best interest.
And I did address your point about arguing from ignorance: Who is ignorant of what in regard to the storming of the Capitol? Ignorance such that we can pin down – rationally? ethically? politically" – whether those who call them terrorists or those who call them patriots are the most ignorant. In other words, you or the dimwits.
As for squabbles over the definition of words like ignorant and terrorist and patriot, I ask those who are adamant about it to bring their own definitions down out of the “intellectual contraption” clouds and apply them to the storming of the Capitol.
What do you mean by “drawn and quartered in regard to their own moral and political value judgments?” I also do not believe in “God” or “objective reality,” unless there is a contradiction in my views that I am oblivious to (which is totally possible).
There’s not much ambiguity in the current scenario. Here’s an example where I think there would be:
Imagine for a moment that there was an overwhelming preponderance of evidence presented to the courts that our voting system was irreparably compromised. There was foreign software found in all voting machines from multiple foreign adversaries, hundreds of thousands of boxes of ballots were discovered/found destroyed by Americans from both political stripes, and Joe Biden won 97% of the popular and electoral vote. It became clear to the overwhelming majority of Americans that those we elected betrayed us and their promise to uphold the Constitution, and government no longer derived its “just powers from the consent of the governed.” Habeas Corpus is suspended in order to “maintain peace,” as almost the entirety of the U.S. population becomes unitedly outspoken against those currently serving in Congress, the Supreme Court, and other heads of government. The Press also begins to be silenced under the pretense of “keeping the peace.” Those who are caught speaking out against the corruption are abducted and tortured or murdered by U.S. government forces.
The Declaration of Independence states:
Now imagine a situation similar in scope and size to what happened on January 6th: people from both political stripes are marching to the Capitol, Democrats and Republicans, united by the recognition that the Constitution is being inarguably disregarded and contradicted. Throngs of people overrun Capitol, but this time they aren’t stopped. They reach Congress and are able to take the majority hostage, although there are several hundred people killed in the process. Those in Congress are held responsible and given due process, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS IS RESTORED (Not abolished). The government calls it a coup, an insurrection. The people call it a Revolution. The consequence is it leads to a restoration of the integrity of the voting system and our representatives in government adhering to the Law as written, and the Constitution.
Now, in that scenario, is it a little easier to tease out whether these people are “patriots” or “terrorists?”