Gary's Corner

[Lacewing]

Christians want to do the right thing. Trump tells them he 'wants what they want', but he actually only serves himself (as he always has) which ends up being very bad for them. .../... Christians and Trump have different ideas about what is good and bad.

Faulty premise.

What's the faulty premise?

[Walker]

You're right on cue with that question.

(continued)

Lacewing knows good from bad.
This is how she knows how to make up bad things, about Trump.

Lacewing is corrupted by being conditioned to her thoughts that ignore reality, and what is real.

For example:

Lacewing has been attached to the thought that the presidency is a stepping stone to fame and fortune, and she has been conditioned by that attachment. This attachment causes the committing of confusion.

However, that’s just a Democrat thing that’s become status quo, and so it's encouraged by some.

Clinton, Obama, and Biden were cut from a different jib than Harry Truman, who left the presidency to take a road trip back home with Bess. Today the presidency is a ticket to cash in, as indeed is the bad concept of "public service" shared by many. For some, just running for the presidency without winning is an income. (AOC, Democrat).

Trump is different from all that.

Trump already had fame and fortune.

In contrast to doing everything for himself, for Trump the presidency is pure altruism for the country.

The guy doesn’t even take a paycheck.
He doesn’t even bill the country for home improvements.

He’s not like Democrat politicians who ride the coat tails of creativity, achievement, and good actions in order to ... "earn money." Speaking of that, all the folks hollering that billionaires don't "earn their money" have no problem with Democrat ex-president opportunists "earning" their money".

Selective outrage based on fantasy is another symptom of TDS, which is nothing more than ignorance fueling ignorance.

Lacewing innately knows all this, but attachment to TDS thoughts have corrupted her apprehension, and that’s bad.

[Lacewing]

(continued)

Your unraveling is not worth reading in detail. It simply shows, once again, your tragically distorted and manipulated thought processes.

[Walker]

Well, you know what they say about horses and water ...
(the comment intends only objectivity and brevity, not disrespect).

Here is your objective correction, based on your subjective error, already explained.
In contrast to doing everything for himself, for Trump the presidency is pure altruism for the country.

[Immanuel Can]

From the fact that people disagree, all we can learn is that some people don't seem to know what good and bad are.

If that's all you can learn, that's your problem.

No, that's all anybody can learn...assuming that person to be logical.

So your assumption is that something is only good and bad if everybody agrees it is?

'Good' and 'bad' are concepts that people assign differently.

Yeah, so? There's nothing in particular logically derivable from that, except that some people are wrong. Maybe all of them. But one thing for certain: they can't all be right. And that's by a basic law, the Law of Non-Contradiction, not because of anything I say.

So, your self-righteous foundation is based on imagination.

That doesn't follow. If good and evil are subjective, then they're unreal...and infinitely malleable. In either case, they would be merely illusory, and you'd be talking about nothing. It also couldn't be "bad" to be "self-righteous," then, even supposing I'd tried to be...which I didn't.

[Lacewing]

From the fact that people disagree, all we can learn is that some people don't seem to know what good and bad are.

If that's all you can learn, that's your problem.

No, that's all anybody can learn...

Says you who proclaims what is, or should be, true and false, right and wrong, good and bad FOR ALL. How grand you must imagine yourself to be! Yet, how small and limited all of "God's" creation must be to have elevated YOU to such a place!

...assuming that person to be logical.

According to who or what? The kind of absurd, self-serving logic that you and Walker use? Is that what all should be limited to?

[Immanuel Can]

If that's all you can learn, that's your problem.

No, that's all anybody can learn...

Says you

No, says logic.

...assuming that person to be logical.

According to who or what?

Logic. Do you not know that logic is a discipline, and has particular rules? One is that one's premises must be adequate to the proposed conclusion. And I'm not seeing what your premise about people disagreeing has to do with any particular conclusion. You'll have to make it explicit.

[Lacewing]

You'll have to make it explicit.

Why? Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all.

[Immanuel Can]

You'll have to make it explicit.

Why? Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all.

There are lots of views about lots of things. That never implies that there's no actual answer, or no actual truth. That's not a logical conclusion to draw from that evidence.

Remember that at one time, 100% of the people in the world believed it was flat. 100% of them were also wrong, as we now know. So it's not important how many people think this or that, or how many agree. There's still the truth. And truth always wins, at the end of the day.

[Lacewing]

Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all.

That never implies that there's no actual answer, or no actual truth.

According to who?

[Immanuel Can]

Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all.

That never implies that there's no actual answer, or no actual truth.

According to who?

Again, logic.

Person A, B, and C believe different things. Person D believes the truth.

Aristotle, Locher and the Pope believed the Earth is the center of our planetary system. Galileo believed it's solar-centric. Three people were wrong, and one was right. Nothing is even remotely surprising about that phenomenon.

That's actually quite a common situation. So nothing can be deduced from the fact that people disagree, except that people can be wrong.

[Lacewing]

...nothing can be deduced from the fact that people disagree, except that people can be wrong.

What can be deduced is that there can be multiple right answers, depending on the angle one is looking from.

Locking in on one view that you can feel superior with is built on poor logic.

[Walker]

...nothing can be deduced from the fact that people disagree, except that people can be wrong.

What can be deduced is that there can be multiple right answers, depending on the angle one is looking from.

Locking in on one view that you can feel superior with is built on poor logic.

On the other hand, objectively examining each of those "multiple right answers" on its merits, within the disembodied intellectual environment of PN, is the natural function of Life adapting to the environment, in action … which is the nature of life. A high capacity to adapt to a variety of environments is the quality that puts human beans at the top of the food chain, a place that some have called the alpha predator position due to the predatory nature of the universe. In a philosophy environment, relevant adaptation is predation upon the false. Focusing on the merits automatically brings perceived demerits into view, and those go to one side of the scales to be weighed against the big picture.

[Walker]

You'll have to make it explicit.

Why? Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all.

There are things that all views cannot deny. I can think of three.

Can you think of any?
If not, why?

(There is no wrong answer, just an invitation to practice philosophy, rather than critiquing another).

[Immanuel Can]

...nothing can be deduced from the fact that people disagree, except that people can be wrong.

What can be deduced is that there can be multiple right answers, depending on the angle one is looking from.

The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two genuinely opposite answers cannot possibly both be right.

That's not because I say so: it's one of Aristotle's fundamental laws of logic -- the sort of thing logic absolutely depends upon. Without it, no logic would even be possible.

So no, the one thing you can know for certain, by pure logic, is that when people disagree, it does not mean "multiple answers can be right." It only means that either they're all wrong, or that most are wrong and one is right. But it can never mean they're all right.

Moreover, where there are genuinely limited possibilities, and the views are genuinely opposite, only one can EVER be right.

For example, let us take three claims:

Our solar system has one Sun.
Our solar system has many Suns.
Our solar system has no Sun.

Those are three genuinely opposite propositions, and they exhaust the possibilities. Can all three be right? Not if the words are understood to mean the same thing in all three. As you can see, only one can even possibly be right, and in fact, only one IS right.

Hope this helps.