Philosophy Now Forum

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:11 am See? And you won't stop now.

Sure, I will.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:19 pm Since you say this is the only thing you missed:

It doesn't really matter. Tilly says there's no judgment without a court case.

Of course, he's fudging the difference between judicial rulings and voting. Judicial rulings are formal procedures issuing in criminal or civil penalties that are imposed according to law. Voting is something people do based on character alone, and is optional for everyone, dispensible at their pleasure.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:14 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:11 am See? And you won't stop now.

Sure, I will.

So that was another lie. You can't help yourself, can you Manny?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:21 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:19 pm Since you say this is the only thing you missed:

It doesn't really matter. Tilly says there's no judgment without a court case.

Of course, he's fudging the difference between judicial rulings and voting. Judicial rulings are formal procedures issuing in criminal or civil penalties that are imposed according to law. Voting is something people do based on character alone, and is optional for everyone, dispensible at their pleasure.

You are continuing taking issue with tillingborn's posts; you are just doing it posts addressed to someone else.

You lie on every level, on every occasion, in every respect; without regard or shame or even self-awareness. It's pathological, Manny.

Get help!

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:14 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:11 am See? And you won't stop now.

Sure, I will.

So that was another lie.

Irony is not your thing, then?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:38 amTilly says there's no judgment without a court case.

No I do not. Once again, I can repeat it as many times as you pretend I didn't write it:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:02 amAs I said, your premises are false and your logic is abysmal. Of course I have beliefs about what my friends might have done; they're my friends. I know something of their character, what they are capable of, and will believe things about them I wasn't a witness to. We are talking about sexual assault; how many of your friends do you believe are capable of that? What sort of evidence would it take for you to believe such an accusation against one of your friends? Suppose the accuser was your wife. Would you defer judgement until the accused was in jail?
I can't count Clinton, Trump or Biden among my friends. From what little I know of their character, there are things I would believe they have done, but for all their incontinent behaviour, I cannot say any of them is a "serial rapist".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:38 amOf course, he's fudging the difference between judicial rulings and voting. Judicial rulings are formal procedures issuing in criminal or civil penalties that are imposed according to law. Voting is something people do based on character alone

That may be how you vote but, again:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:11 am You really are losing your memory:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:38 amHow do you decide whom to vote for?

Policy.

mickthinks called it, you can fool yourself that by going through a third party, you are no longer engaging with my arguments, but

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:14 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:11 am See? And you won't stop now.

Sure, I will.

No you won't.

Irony is not your thing, then?

I rarely use it in writing; not least because it doesn't help me to be clear, which is something you seem not to care about.

Were you being ironic, though? It doesn't seem to me to be an occasion for irony. What deeper truth did you intend your ironic repudiation of tillingborn's accurate prediction to convey? That you are aware of your character defects?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:26 pm you are no longer engaging with my arguments,

Did you have one left?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:55 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:26 pmyou are no longer engaging with my arguments,

Did you have one left?

There's this one:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:02 amAs I said, your premises are false and your logic is abysmal. Of course I have beliefs about what my friends might have done; they're my friends. I know something of their character, what they are capable of, and will believe things about them I wasn't a witness to. We are talking about sexual assault; how many of your friends do you believe are capable of that? What sort of evidence would it take for you to believe such an accusation against one of your friends? Suppose the accuser was your wife. Would you defer judgement until the accused was in jail?
I can't count Clinton, Trump or Biden among my friends. From what little I know of their character, there are things I would believe they have done, but for all their incontinent behaviour, I cannot say any of them is a "serial rapist".

Here's another:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:38 amHow do you decide whom to vote for?

Policy.

This is a prediction rather than an argument:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:26 pmSee? And you won't stop now.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:14 pmSure, I will.

No you won't.

And the reason you won't is that you cannot admit what is obvious to everyone else: you are wrong.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:22 pm We are talking about sexual assault;

I answered that.

But I'll run it again. Biden, Trump, Clinton...are not my friends. They are politicians campaigning for public confidence -- especially confidence in their characters, because a policy offered by an unreliable person is no policy at all. So they want us to pass judgment on their characters, find them reliable, and offer a vote to them.

My friends and I have never been accused of sexual assault. Ever. No normal person ever should be. When somebody has been, that at least raises a serious question about his/her character, and some explanation must be found in order to confirm it's not true. And that sort of investigation should be pursued, of course; and if facts are found, as they were in the Clinton case, then charges ought to follow.

But this is all separate from any question of voting. For voting is at the discretion of the voter, and a withholding a vote is not an implication of criminality; it merely means, "I don't trust or like you." That's all.

Now, politicians are held to a higher barrier of character, because they expect to be trusted with so much power. They should have unimpeachable character, such that any implication of bad character can be readily confirmed to be nothing but the usual partisan slanders, and not to be true. If they don't have such a character, then we're not getting the right kinds of people in politics.

But one votes as one sees fit. That's the democratic process. It's not a criminal indictment. It's a personal assessment of character and reliability.

All I'm asking is why the Lefties are so furious about Trump, so that it pales in comparison to any ire they ever expressed about any other Republican, and is not even close to the justifiable concerns they should have had about Clinton and Biden. That needs a justification, if one has one.

Do you have one?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:42 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:22 pmWe are talking about sexual assault;

I answered that.

But I'll run it again. Biden, Trump, Clinton...are not my friends.

Then we have that in common. As you have evidently forgotten, I remind you that I have made this point repeatedly:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:22 pmI can't count Clinton, Trump or Biden among my friends. From what little I know of their character, there are things I would believe they have done, but for all their incontinent behaviour, I cannot say any of them is a "serial rapist".

You still haven't explained the grounds on which you can. It was the first thing I asked you in this thread:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:15 pmBoth Trump and Biden have been accused of sexual assault. Neither have been convicted. On what grounds do you find one guilty and the other innocent?

You still haven't answered.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:42 pmMy friends and I have never been accused of sexual assault. Ever. No normal person ever should be. When somebody has been, that at least raises a serious question about his/her character, and some explanation must be found in order to confirm it's not true.

No, that is your guilt by gossip justice. The onus is on the accuser to prove their case.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:14 pm You still haven't explained the grounds on which you can.

On what grounds I "can" what?

I'm not in the criminal justice system. I don't put people in jail. I just vote on candidates. Do you want me to do something? It's hard to see what it would be.

I am, however, free to form my opinion of the characters of the candidates. I'm free to do that, even if I'm not a voter. They're public figures, campaigning on the quality of their own integrity. So I can make all the assessments of that I would like. So can you.

What I'm wondering is why you think Trump's personal character is so much worse than Clinton's admissions or Biden's follies?

Do you have an answer?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:46 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:14 pmYou still haven't explained the grounds on which you can.

On what grounds I "can" what?

It's a simple question:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:15 pmBoth Trump and Biden have been accused of sexual assault. Neither have been convicted. On what grounds do you find one guilty and the other innocent?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:46 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:14 pmYou still haven't explained the grounds on which you can.

On what grounds I "can" what?

It's a simple question:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:15 pmBoth Trump and Biden have been accused of sexual assault. Neither have been convicted. On what grounds do you find one guilty and the other innocent?

I'm not in the judicial system. I don't "find" anybody "guilty" or "innocent." I vote. I decide people trustworthy or untrustworthy, to my own standards of both. And I vote accordingly.

On what basis do you find Clinton and Biden more trustworthy than Trump?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:21 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:19 pm Since you say this is the only thing you missed:

It doesn't really matter. Tilly says there's no judgment without a court case.

What matters is that you were ignorant of the facts presented here. Your ignorance lead to your saying that Trump’s misogynistic self-reveal was just a symptom of the fake syndrome you wanted to justify.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:21 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:19 pm Since you say this is the only thing you missed:

It doesn't really matter. Tilly says there's no judgment without a court case.

What matters is that you were ignorant of the facts presented here.

No, the facts, in this case, don't matter...even if true...for two reasons. One is that I'm not a Trumpist, so his pecadillos are no concern to me, unless they exceed those of every other candidate; and even then, they don't affect me. The second is that Clinton is verifiably guilty of worse, and Biden is very probably guilty of worse, and the Left doesn't care.

So the mystery of TDS persists.