Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:54 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:52 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:04 am I don't think they're doing anything of the kind. If anything, some of their reforms just might save the West...at least the American part of it. Do you really think Washington wasn't a swamp? Do you think that bureaucrats who had huge salaries and misused public funds are going to keep the welfare state going long term? Somebody needed to call a halt to it; and I have yet to see a bad effect of their cuts. But we can wait and find out, because America was in serious decline so far, and couldn't survive much more damage than the Clinton-Obama-Bidens had done.

What about George Bush Jr.

What about him? I don't care about him, and never did.

But you're making a fallacy called an "et tu quoque," in which the argument goes, "Sure, my guys are bad, but I know somebody on another side, and he was also bad."

But let's accept that GB Jr. was evil; how does that make the others any better?

Or is it only important what Democrats have done?

I'm going to say something you're going to be annoyed at, but don't: I like the people I'm talking about, but they have a fault. Most people do.

You're behaving in a very "American" way at the moment, Gary, if I can manage to say that without offense. Americans seem to think that everybody has to be either a Dem or a Republican, because every American has to be one or the other. But I don't live in your country, and don't care about your parties, and pick and choose policies, not parties.

Americans always think that everybody else has to think, and even should think, exactly according to the allegiances they feel. How else can we explain that all the Americans here seem to think I must be a "Trumpist" if I say that Trump's done anything I like? For some bizarre reason, they seem to think every country has some version of their Dems and Repubs, maybe because many Americans never think of other countries at all. Visitors to America are invariably stunned by the stupidity of the questions they get about their own places: "Do you have a queen? Does everybody there ride camels? Do you people have a 4th of July?" In fact, I've met Americans who never even think outside their own state, or even their own subregion: go to Kentucky or West Virginia's southern part, and you'll know exactly what I mean: Americans can be terribly, terribly provincial and self-absorbed. It's probably their worst trait -- and I say that as somebody who, in all honesty, likes Americans in most ways.

Don't be that. We non-Americans are free to like policies that we like, and not like the policies we don't like. We don't have to sign up to your parties.

pursuing sustainable energy

Oh, Gary, Gary, Gary...name one state that uses energy and is "sustainable." Their success record is absolutely zero. What you have, instead, is vast waste of resources and ravaging of the environment by "green" companies and "green" programs that actually hurt, not help the environment. Don't mistake a windmill, a solar panel, or a recycling bin for something that helps the environment. Besides, the big carbon polluters in the world are two: China and India. Compared to them, nothing anybody else does will even matter. So there are no serious discussions about sustainability to be had that don't begin with those two names.

getting us out of wars we shouldn't be in.

It was the Dems who pushed the NATO thing with Ukraine, and goaded Putin into invading; and the last thing the Dems want is for that war ever to end.

But it seems to me that the Bush administration has perpetrated the greatest evil by far, getting us into the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Like I say: I don't care about Bush: I'm not a fan. I don't have to be: I'm not in his country, never voted for him, and don't belong to any party he would even recognize. Bush was a bumbler; but it's not better than what the Dems have done to Ukraine, and Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan was, by any metric a complete disaster. So I'm not seeing that the et tu quoque fallacy here is working at all. Nor should it.

Oh bullshit. You defend people like Netanyahu and say nothing about Bush, and then froth at the mouth, deriding Democrats for being "socialists". You're as bigoted as they come. Everyone but you can see your loyalties painted on your shoulder. Last I checked, Republicans don't even have a platform on clean energy. And yet you decry the Democrats for (at the minimum, granted) paying lip service. Literally, you're defending people who are likely to destroy the human race if Chomsky is correct about the Republican Party. That's an unprincipled stand. No one is asking you to take a side, only to be consistent. If you believe in clean energy then you would give the Republican shit for dismissing it. You don't. I'm not buying it. When I see consistency, I'll change my mind.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:48 am Oh bullshit.

What are you referring to?

You defend people like Netanyahu

I don't think I ever have. I also don't remember attacking him. In fact, I can't remember saying anything about him at all.

...deriding Democrats for being "socialists"...

A great many of them are, by their own declaration. What would you call Bernie?

Last I checked, Republicans don't even have a platform on clean energy.

I'm not a Republican. And if somebody is going to have a "platform," it had better be one that works. There's no point in having a "platform" that doesn't.

And yet you decry the Democrats for (at the minimum, granted) paying lip service.

I decry them for being hypocrites, actually. They neither care about the environment, nor about migrants, nor about Ukraine, nor about Israel or Gaza. What they care about is getting and holding power, so they can soak American taxpayers and launder the money into foreign wars and useless bureaucratic boondoggles. That much is very obvious.

...if Chomsky is correct...

If he ever is, it will be the first time in a very long time.

No one is asking you to take a side,

Apparently, you're not only "asking," you're "expecting" and "demanding" that I be on your opponents' side. I'm not, but I am against the Dems. They've been truly wicked lately.

If you believe in clean energy then you would give the Republican shit for dismissing it.

No, I don't have any duty to the Republican party. They're not my team, anymore than the Dems are.

But I would say again that there's no use in talking about "clean energy" when there's no such thing, and when all the policies you're advocating only create more pollution -- and that's what the pseudo-environmentalists of our day are doing. Windmills aren't "clean." Nor are electric cars. Nor are solar panels. Nor is biodeisel. Nor is withholding forest management measures. Nor are recycling programs. Jetting to climate conferences certainly is not helping the environment. And so on. It's all just a colossal grift, a money grab for the so-called "green" industries. And if you ever check the facts, that's exactly what you'll find it all is.

We had this discussion before, I believe, over windmills and solar panels, as I remember: and you were horrified when I gave you the insight on things like the windmill "graveyards," or the fact that they last about 15 years and never produce enough energy to offset their environmental damage. But you seem to have forgotten the facts you once knew.

As far as people who talk about the environment, you can't give people points for talking about things they aren't doing, especially while they trash the environment even faster than before. For example, electric cars have a bigger carbon footprint than gas cars, and use more rare-earth metals, explode horribly in crashes that create non-extinguishable fires, and are much harder to recycle. Recycling programs put three or four trucks on the road for every one there used to be, all chugging diesel -- and only clear plastic is genuinely recyclable at value, so the recyclers spend additional energy in sorting plants, separating out the clear plastic (more energy used), and then send the rest to a landfill again, in...you guessed it...more diesel trucks. But people who don't know love these "environmental" programs because they love the illusion of being "environmentally friendly," even while they're trashing the environment. So we must ask: is the true environmentalist the one who goes along with the sham, or the one who calls it out?

So the Dems have no virtues on the environmental front. You can forget about claiming any moral high ground for them. All they do is talk. In practice, they are accellerating, not slowing, the environmental damage -- rather like the LA fires last summer, if you recall them. They were in the Dem enclave of California. And they were largely the result of poor electrical grid repair combined with a lack of proper brush clearing, coupled with draining down the reservoirs -- all three done in the name of "saving the environment." If Dems ever learned lessons, it might have taught them something. But they care more about posing than doing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 12:52 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:35 pm
Oh, very easily.

No insinuations, show me the quote where I am using that case to say that Trump denies due process to illegals.

I did: it's every time you say that you are concerned about "due process." If you're concerned about "due process," it certainly means you're concerned about the process, not just the judgment in a particular case, even if you regard that as a misjudged case. You're concerned about the "process" being used, you say, and what is "due" to all.

What are you doing to the English language you horrible man?

Show me the quote where I am using that case to say that Trump denies due process to illegals

Or stop bearing false witness.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:40 am

...deriding Democrats for being "socialists"...

A great many of them are, by their own declaration. What would you call Bernie?

How is capitalism, the pursuit of private profit, and production for production's sake, going to accomplish anything other than continue to exploit the environment?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 12:52 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:39 pm
No insinuations, show me the quote where I am using that case to say that Trump denies due process to illegals.

I did: it's every time you say that you are concerned about "due process." If you're concerned about "due process," it certainly means you're concerned about the process, not just the judgment in a particular case, even if you regard that as a misjudged case. You're concerned about the "process" being used, you say, and what is "due" to all.

What are you doing to the English language you horrible man?

Interpreting your words literally. I know it's horrible, but I can't help myself: I know how to read.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:19 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 12:52 am
I did: it's every time you say that you are concerned about "due process." If you're concerned about "due process," it certainly means you're concerned about the process, not just the judgment in a particular case, even if you regard that as a misjudged case. You're concerned about the "process" being used, you say, and what is "due" to all.

What are you doing to the English language you horrible man?

Interpreting your words literally. I know it's horrible, but I can't help myself: I know how to read.

No insinuations, show me the quote where I am using that case to say that Trump denies due process to illegals.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 10:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:40 am

...deriding Democrats for being "socialists"...

A great many of them are, by their own declaration. What would you call Bernie?

How is capitalism, the pursuit of private profit, and production for production's sake, going to accomplish anything other than continue to exploit the environment?

Interesting. You didn't answer. Yes, Bernie is a Socialist. So is AOC. And So are a great many Democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... s_Congress But you'll find that like Bernie, they're "limousine Socialists," which means they want Socialism to be imposed on the masses, but they want to keep owning their own mansions (Bernie has three), and riding around in their limousines. Likewise, the Hollywood elite is always campaigning for Socialism -- but not for the Hollywood elite, just for you, so they can have more control of your wealth and your life. Socialism is a tool for depriving you of possessions; it's not a means for them to share their privileges with you. It's also a justification for them to increase the size and power of government, so they can have more power over you, and engineer the society that suits them. If you thought they loved you, then it's time to think again. People do what they do for their own reasons. I'm sorry to say, but it's true.

Meanwhile, there is no such thing as "capitalism." That's an invented concept, one that emerged just before Marx wrote Das Kapital, because he and his comrades were projecting their own ideological bent onto their perceived "opposition." Check out the etymology, and you'll find out that's true. So it's not a description of any ideology that actually exists: it's a propaganda label from the Marxist side.

What there is, instead, are free markets. Free markets have their problems, alright; and there has to be some limitation on what can be done in the name of keeping the markets free, for sure. But more free than limited is the way to go, because it's the best situation for the most people. And there really isn't anybody who can be trusted to control the free market, because human nature is to become greedy and self-interested. A good, democratic system will put limitations on governmental power, so that no person becomes able to control what happens for too long or with too great a scope. And that's the best arranagement any of us are ever going to get.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:19 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:54 am
What are you doing to the English language you horrible man?

Interpreting your words literally. I know it's horrible, but I can't help myself: I know how to read.

No insinuations, show me the quote where I am using that case to say that Trump denies due process to illegals.

No insinuations. Completely logical implications. If you didn't understand what you were saying, I don't know what to tell you next.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:32 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:19 pm
Interpreting your words literally. I know it's horrible, but I can't help myself: I know how to read.

No insinuations, show me the quote where I am using that case to say that Trump denies due process to illegals.

No insinuations. Completely logical implications. If you didn't understand what you were saying, I don't know what to tell you next.

It was drivel. I am concerned about due process because I think the decay of rule of law in America is disturbing. In that case it is worrying that the administration has lost the case in court - and badly - but refuses to remedy the issue as instructed by the courts. I have already written that one of the hallmarks of a civilised nation is that the state can go to court, lose and then live with the loss and obey the court. It is therefore uncivilised to go on the opposite direction.

Please let me be in charge of what my fucking point is.

Incidentally....

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:49 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 4:20 pm Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.

In case you have forgotten, this is where you butted into my conversation with Walker to tell me I was wrong. It has nothing to do with the bullshit you are spewing now.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:32 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:26 pm
No insinuations, show me the quote where I am using that case to say that Trump denies due process to illegals.

No insinuations. Completely logical implications. If you didn't understand what you were saying, I don't know what to tell you next.

It was drivel. I am concerned about due process because I think the decay of rule of law in America is disturbing.

You just said it again. Right now. You say you aren't concerned just about A-G, but rather about the much broader implications for "the decay of the rule of law in America." I don't know how much more proof you can give yourself while still ignoring your own words. Amazing.

Please let me be in charge of what my fucking point is.

I will...if you promise to be in charge of the meaning of what you say. Apparently, you're not even aware of your own implications, at the moment.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:02 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:32 pm
No insinuations. Completely logical implications. If you didn't understand what you were saying, I don't know what to tell you next.

It was drivel. I am concerned about due process because I think the decay of rule of law in America is disturbing.

You just said it again. Right now. You say you aren't concerned just about A-G, but rather about the much broader implications for "the decay of the rule of law in America." I don't know how much more proof you can give yourself while still ignoring your own words. Amazing.

Please let me be in charge of what my fucking point is.

I will...if you promise to be in charge of the meaning of what you say. Apparently, you're not even aware of your own implications, at the moment.

That's not a claim that I was using this case to claim all illegals are being denied due process.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:40 am ] I decry them for being hypocrites, actually. They neither care about the environment, nor about migrants, nor about Ukraine, nor about Israel or Gaza. What they care about is getting and holding power, so they can soak American taxpayers and launder the money into foreign wars and useless bureaucratic boondoggles. That much is very obvious.
[

I'm glad you know what other people "care" about. You're a mind reader! Of course the Democrats are hypocrites -- although not as blatantly as the Republicans or whatever the parties are called in your country. Politicians are hypocritical. But your idiotic mind-reading concerning Democratic "cares" is even more hypocritical. You don't know what they (we) care about, but you are glad to bear false witness on the subject.

"Free markets", by the way, are not and never were "free". That does not mean they are wicked; capitalism developed during a period of rapidly improving human well-being (the causal relationship is uncertain). However "free markets" depend on the definition of "property" and by the state's enforcement of property law. This is no more "free" than any other economic system. Property, after all, does nothing except limit freedom (directly -- of course there are indirect effects).

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:40 am ] I decry them for being hypocrites, actually. They neither care about the environment, nor about migrants, nor about Ukraine, nor about Israel or Gaza. What they care about is getting and holding power, so they can soak American taxpayers and launder the money into foreign wars and useless bureaucratic boondoggles. That much is very obvious.

I'm glad you know what other people "care" about.

Judge by their actions. Don't believe their speeches.

Politicians are hypocritical.

Now we agree.

"Free markets", by the way, are not and never were "free".

I said that. I even said that they could only be partly free. But being toward the free side is much better than being toward the authoritarian side, obviously.

capitalism developed

The whole idea of "capitalism" was "developed" by Marxists during the last century, during the Industrial Revolution. It had no existence before. Before that, you had things like feudalism and aristocracy.

However "free markets" depend on the definition of "property" and by the state's enforcement of property law.

Not quite: they depend on a society recognizing "property rights," whether by formal enforcement or by mutual consent. The law is only supposed to recognize and support the unalienable right to property...it doesn't create that right. The right pre-exists all laws.

Property, after all, does nothing except limit freedom (directly -- of course there are indirect effects).

I know what you're trying to say...that if I have some property, then it means you can't also have that property at the same time, or in the same way. But actually, possession of property is the sine qua non of freedom. If you can possess no property, then you are left with absolutely nothing at your disposal, nothing with which to make choices or to direct your own life, so you become utterly incapable of any moral or independent action. You have no life: you are owned by outside forces exclusively.

So, for example, if you have no money, you can neither buy a home, nor travel, nor secure your future, nor give presents or give charitably to others, nor even feed and clothe your family in a daily way. Instead, you are entirely controlled by outside agencies, who may or may not (and always not) have your interests in their view. You're a slave, not a free man.

But slavery has one consolation: namely, that since a slave has no choices, neither has he any responsibilities. So some people, those who fear responsibility, prefer their slavery to their freedom.

I do not.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:02 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:45 pm

It was drivel. I am concerned about due process because I think the decay of rule of law in America is disturbing.

You just said it again. Right now. You say you aren't concerned just about A-G, but rather about the much broader implications for "the decay of the rule of law in America." I don't know how much more proof you can give yourself while still ignoring your own words. Amazing.

Please let me be in charge of what my fucking point is.

I will...if you promise to be in charge of the meaning of what you say. Apparently, you're not even aware of your own implications, at the moment.

That's not a claim that I was using this case to claim all illegals are being denied due process.

Thanks for the clarification. So your concern was strictly limited to A-G, and had no intended implication at all for the more general application of "due process," and had no implication regarding the Trump administration or legal processes of migrants beyond, "Flash doesn't like what happened to A-G"?

I'll believe you, if that's what you're saying. But it means you had nothing worthwhile to say. A-G isn't coming back. And since you're happy with the government processes in place in all other cases (or at least have no comment to offer on them, as you seem to want to say now) I guess we're done with that topic: A-G is gone.