[mike777]

mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 00:20, said:

Not sure what you mean by faith in this context. I have biases, unconscious assumptions, and emotions, but as far as I know, I don't have faith in anything. I have opinions and beliefs, but those are mutable, being based on my understanding of facts and arguments. I can be stubborn. I am pretty sure that there are times and subjects about which I am unreasonable, but I really don't think there is any proposition you can suggest where I cannot point to facts and yet where I have absolute certainty as to the answer.

A trite example. I am an atheist. Contrary to what nigel seems to think that word means, I do not believe that there is no god. Leaving aside the fascinating question (to the subtleties of which most religious believers appear oblivious) of what that term actually means, as an atheist I do not believe that there is a god. IOW, I see no reason to postulate the existence of such an entity.

Now, if by some miracle (forgive the liberty), a god-entity were to offer persuasive evidence of its existence, I like to think that I would, if that evidence didn't involve my death, at least consider the possibility that I was wrong. I won't hold my breath, even tho we are, so many claim, in The Last Days, lol.

There is no way, afaik, to falsify the god proposition. Therefore it would make no sense to be certain that one doesn't exist. Of course, that doesn't make its existence likely.

As another example, more relevant to this thread, I strongly believe that Trump will be a disaster as President and that he and Ryan will make America a truly horrible place to live for many millions of non-white, non-Xian people. I am prepared to be, and would be delighted to be, wrong. I think as I do for a number of what appear to me to be cogent reasons. Were he to act in such a way as to negate those reasons, my views would change. My attitude is not about faith: it is about observation and argument.

I hope and pray that MikeH is incorrect regarding his view, last P
I M GLAD, very glad he remains open minded.


disaster is a strong word, I hope Mike will see America, my country as not a disaster, I hope he views my country as a great a truly great country if flawed.

[PassedOut]

Trump Fires Adviser’s Son From Transition for Spreading Fake News

Quote

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump on Tuesday fired one of his transition team’s staff members, Michael G. Flynn, the son of Mr. Trump’s choice for national security adviser, for using Twitter to spread a fake news story about Hillary Clinton that led to an armed confrontation in a pizza restaurant in Washington.

The uproar over Mr. Flynn’s Twitter post cast a harsh spotlight on the views that he and his father, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, aired on social media throughout the presidential campaign. Both men have shared fake news stories alleging that Mrs. Clinton committed felonies, and have posted their own Twitter messages that at times have crossed into Islamophobia.

But their social media musings apparently attracted little attention from Mr. Trump or his transition team before a North Carolina man fired a rifle on Sunday inside Comet Ping Pong, which was the subject of false stories tying it and the Clinton campaign to a child sex trafficking ring.

Some things do attract attention.

[nige1]

diana_eva, on 2016-December-06, 16:48, said:

Nige, I'm usually on your side and hate to see a relatively new poster put off by "the usual gang" as you call it. But you're falling for Jon's drama role here, he lumps himself with Kaitlyn as the poor mistreated voices against the tide, when it's not the case.

Kaitlyn is NOT in the same league with Jon at all, even if he would like for us all to see how mistreated K is. Jon is the target of the attacks, Kaitlyn mostly gets calls to stand up by what she posts and stop hiding around the bush with claims like "oh it doesn't matter what I believe but here's another story about aliens having group sex with Hillary that all my friends believe and they are so smart and educated". But other than this WC stuff she is respected as a thoughtful and valuable member of the Forums and we would all hate to see her gone bec of politics.

In this thread, didn't they call Kaitlyn a racist or worse, before they got their hooks into JonOttowa?

But I love your news-item about Hilary-Aliens group-sex

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on 2016-December-07, 07:38, said:

In this thread, they called Kaitlyn a racist or worse before they got their hooks into JonOttowa.

Nige, hand on heart, do you believe that none of the views posted by Kaitlyn in this thread have been racist? Regardless of this specific case, if someone were to post racist views on BBF do you find it strange to point this out to them, particularly if you suspect that that racism is unintentional and there is therefore a benefit to doing so?

[kenberg]

I see Kaitlyn as in need of guidance and yes I fully realize this is more than a bit condescending.

Kaitlyn I was thinking of you as I read a long story in the Post today about the lead up to the Ping Pong Comet stuff. As I read about all of the people that have been affected by this, and I read about the businesses, I realized that the guy dating my granddaughter is employed by one of these shops. Not Comet. I really like the guy, and so this adds a little directness to how I see this.

But the point I want to make is that it doesn't matter if some of these goofballs really believe the crap that they are tweeting and acting on. They are doing an immense amount of harm regardless of why they are doing it. I quote just one of the expressions of frustration by the shop owners:

Quote

“What can we do?” Ousmaal said. “There is no basement. There is no tunnel. There is nothing.”

Here is the link. I hope you will read it, preferable all of it.

https://www.washingt...m=.e3e7bebf2f72

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 00:20, said:

Not sure what you mean by faith in this context. I have biases, unconscious assumptions, and emotions, but as far as I know, I don't have faith in anything. I have opinions and beliefs, but those are mutable, being based on my understanding of facts and arguments. I can be stubborn. I am pretty sure that there are times and subjects about which I am unreasonable, but I really don't think there is any proposition you can suggest where I cannot point to facts and yet where I have absolute certainty as to the answer.

A trite example. I am an atheist. Contrary to what nigel seems to think that word means, I do not believe that there is no god. Leaving aside the fascinating question (to the subtleties of which most religious believers appear oblivious) of what that term actually means, as an atheist I do not believe that there is a god. IOW, I see no reason to postulate the existence of such an entity.

Now, if by some miracle (forgive the liberty), a god-entity were to offer persuasive evidence of its existence, I like to think that I would, if that evidence didn't involve my death, at least consider the possibility that I was wrong. I won't hold my breath, even tho we are, so many claim, in The Last Days, lol.

There is no way, afaik, to falsify the god proposition. Therefore it would make no sense to be certain that one doesn't exist. Of course, that doesn't make its existence likely.

As another example, more relevant to this thread, I strongly believe that Trump will be a disaster as President and that he and Ryan will make America a truly horrible place to live for many millions of non-white, non-Xian people. I am prepared to be, and would be delighted to be, wrong. I think as I do for a number of what appear to me to be cogent reasons. Were he to act in such a way as to negate those reasons, my views would change. My attitude is not about faith: it is about observation and argument.

Exactly. That was my point to Kaitlyn. You do not form beliefs based on faith alone. It should be obvious to any unbiased reader that you do not fit the description of "scam salesman" I presented.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2016-December-07, 06:45, said:

Trump Fires Adviser’s Son From Transition for Spreading Fake News


Some things do attract attention.

I really don't think the headline is accurate. It should read "Flynn's son forced out for creating negative publicity."

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2016-December-07, 07:38, said:

In this thread, didn't they call Kaitlyn a racist or worse, before they got their hooks into JonOttowa?

But I love your news-item about Hilary-Aliens group-sex

Do you, before jumping in to attack Richard and me, actually read the series of posts that includes the posts giving rise to the accusations of racism?

Let's look at the meme that really showed her true attitude towards blacks. She said, admitting that this was completely without evidence, that reasonable business owners would be unlikely to hire blacks because, if fired, blacks are prone to bringing false discrimination claims.

In doing so, she seems to have singled out blacks as a group likely to bring fraudulent lawsuits. They are, it seems, more likely to do this than any other group. Women. Gays. Latinos. Trans. Disabled.Asians. First Nations.

No, it is all the blacks...and that is just common sense...it isn't the least racist to make up this notion, and, she said, it is unfair and unrealistic to ask for evidence because stuff like this can't ever be proven...but it is of course absolutely true!

And, to show her lack of racism, she points out that she is quite happy to bank at an institution where all of the tellers are black! OMG, how noble of her. I wonder how many of the bank managers or Directors are black? But I digress.

Kaitlyn appears to be oblivious to her racism, but that is pretty common afaik. After all, most well-intentioned, decent people know that to be a racist means being a nasty excuse for a human being, and Kaitlyn can't and won't see herself as such. The reasoning, such as it is, goes something like this:

Racists are horrible people

I'm not a horrible person

Therefore I am not a racist

Of course, being a realist is different, and everybody knows that blacks are seen as litigious...they fill the courts with false claims of discrimination so any honest business owner must surely take that into account. Isn't it awful that blacks face that barrier to employment? (other than as a bank teller...and maybe as a servant?).

Back in the 1970s feminists used to engage in a lot of what was called consciousness raising. The idea was that many people have attitudes of which they are unaware. Women were inherently treated as second-class citizens, suited only to subordinate roles and this was so taken for granted that the only solution was to make chauvinists re-examine their thinking. It worked, at least in part, altho it remains a work in progress. So too with racism.

Let racism slide without being challenged, and the racist will continue on as a racist, all the time thinking to herself that she is just being honest, and not the least bit prejudiced.

So far, at least, efforts to raise Kaitlyn's consciousness seem to have fallen short, but we can hope.

[Kaitlyn S]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-06, 09:39, said:

The followers of Hannity do not grok the con.

My own view about Hannity is that I don't care if he believes or doesn't believe his stories - I question why anyone would watch someone who is so obviously biased as to be inherently untrustworthy. In my life I have discovered that there is always much more to learn. Because of that, I have the advantage of realizing that anyone who says "I know" or "I am right" or "I have the answer" is running a scam, regardless if believed or not.

It is the same reason I do not watch Rachael Maddox or care much for the opinions of Bill Maher. I like my op-eds to be clearly marked as such.

Winstonm, on 2016-December-06, 22:10, said:

Does he claim to be right on faith alone? Does he claim ultimate knowledge? No. So quit being obtuse.

I see nothing about faith alone or ultimate knowledge in the first post. From what your post alone, one would assume that mikeh was running a scam.

Do I think that mikeh is running a scam? No, don't be ridiculous. (Of course, some of my friends might point out that any liberal that isn't just being duped themselves is pulling off a scam, but I'm not buying it there. I think mikeh truly believes what he posts, just like I truly believe that Rush believes what he says - again, remembering that Rush started when broadcasting conservative messages was not a moneymaker.)

Did I think I was trying to be funny? Of course.

Do I think it's totally sad that nobody here got the humor? Yes. Very, very sad. Sad because I'm being called the clueless one.

My next post will be another attempt at humor, Please don't read anything else into it.

[Kaitlyn S]

Apologies to diana for taking a quote out of context.

diana_eva, on 2016-December-06, 16:48, said:

here's another story about aliens having group sex with Hillary

You need to call them "undocumented immigrants". Otherwise some gullible souls will think you're saying she's having group sex with extraterrestrial beings.

[Kaitlyn S]

mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 10:44, said:

Do you, before jumping in to attack Richard and me, actually read the series of posts that includes the posts giving rise to the accusations of racism?

Let's look at the meme that really showed her true attitude towards blacks. She said, admitting that this was completely without evidence, that reasonable business owners would be unlikely to hire blacks because, if fired, blacks are prone to bringing false discrimination claims.

In doing so, she seems to have singled out blacks as a group likely to bring fraudulent lawsuits. They are, it seems, more likely to do this than any other group. Women. Gays. Latinos. Trans. Disabled.Asians. First Nations.

No, it is all the blacks...and that is just common sense...it isn't the least racist to make up this notion, and, she said, it is unfair and unrealistic to ask for evidence because stuff like this can't ever be proven...but it is of course absolutely true!

Mike, we have already been down this road before. But since you didn't get the memo, let me repeat.

Kaitlyn S said:

Because the initial comment that started the post (by someone else) was about blacks being not called back for a job. If it was about gays not being called back, this entire discussion would have been about gay anti-discrimination lawsuits and you would be calling me homophobic, and wondering why I hate gays and not mentioning blacks. I don't hate any of them. I am strictly talking about a business's bottom line.

Is it a cruel and heartless fact I am pointing out? Yes, of course. I think it's absolutely deplorable that we need anti-discrimination laws. But apparently we do need them.

This was in response to another poster bringing up exactly the same point you are bringing up here.

This is kind of funny. For I have active on another forum for quite a while. It has a lot more conservative posters who are routinely labelled as bigots and racists. If you asked the liberals on that group who I was bigoted against, you would get the same answer from every single one of them, and it would not be blacks. So if my alleged bias against blacks is so obvious, they must have all missed it. But maybe they aren't that smart; it's only a forum for people that play high-strategy boardgames.

[diana_eva]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-07, 10:56, said:

Apologies to diana for taking a quote out of context.



You need to call them "undocumented immigrants". Otherwise some gullible souls will think you're saying she's having group sex with extraterrestrial beings.

Are you denying that she was involved with extraterrestrials? Geez there are even videos to prove it. Don't know about immigrants but of course any reasonable being can assume it can be true, why not.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-07, 10:54, said:

I see nothing about faith alone or ultimate knowledge in the first post. From what your post alone, one would assume that mikeh was running a scam.

No, only if you take into account your own emotional response to MikeH would you think his posts fit my description. Let me clear this up. This is a scam: "I am the way, the truth, and the light." This is not a scam: "Objective evidence leads me to believe such and such..."

[Kaitlyn S]

kenberg, on 2016-December-07, 09:08, said:

I see Kaitlyn as in need of guidance and yes I fully realize this is more than a bit condescending.

Kaitlyn I was thinking of you as I read a long story in the Post today about the lead up to the Ping Pong Comet stuff. As I read about all of the people that have been affected by this, and I read about the businesses, I realized that the guy dating my granddaughter is employed by one of these shops. Not Comet. I really like the guy, and so this adds a little directness to how I see this.

But the point I want to make is that it doesn't matter if some of these goofballs really believe the crap that they are tweeting and acting on. They are doing an immense amount of harm regardless of why they are doing it. I quote just one of the expressions of frustration by the shop owners:


Here is the link. I hope you will read it, preferable all of it.

https://www.washingt...m=.e3e7bebf2f72

Interesting story. However, it is not going to have the effect that I am going to believe any left leaning story and assume any right-leaning story is bull manure that has spread like wildfire.

I had seen this propagation of false stories by foreign entities before.

However, no matter how ridiculous the story, as long as it's not physically possible, one has to give it some probability of being true.

For example, when I first got an email about Anthony Weiner sending pictures of his wiener, I thought it was probably a hoax, but kept an open mind, realizing that there was some small chance that it was true.

The left say that Donald Trump sexually molested some women that have come forward. While I don't think it happened, I have to put the probability at something greater than zero but less than 100%. I will never know the whole truth unless it happens and Trump admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

The right says, and shows with the O'Keefe video, that Democratic operatives were planning people voting out of state. The left says it was all taken out of context. Did it happen? Again, there is some chance it happened. Not 100%. Again, we will never know unless somebody admits to it, and even then, the person who admits to it may be being blackmailed so I guess we will never know. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

WMD in Iraq? Many think they moved them to another country before the searches. Again, not 0%, not 100%. We'll only know if a reliable source admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

I probably related the story before of a friend getting emailed a news story about Obama signing an executive order on Friday afternoon banning the pledge of allegiance from any building receiving federal funding (including public schools.) At the time, it was possible, not 0%, not 100%. My friends all got in a tizzy and were yelling "This traitor must be stopped!" I innocently asked, "Can we verify that this is true?" About 90 seconds of research showed it to be a hoax and we all had a good laugh.

However, just like the Weiner story, any story could potentially be true until it's shown not to be. In the past year, I've developed a greater appreciation for the fact that many of these made-up stories go viral and there are people who benefit from the story who might help the spread of it. Maybe that's why I asked if the Pledge of Allegiance "newsflash" might be a hoax - I've seen it too many times.

[Kaitlyn S]

diana_eva, on 2016-December-07, 11:07, said:

Are you denying that she was involved with extraterrestrials? Geez there are even videos to prove it. Don't know about immigrants but of course any reasonable being can assume it can be true, why not.

In my prior post I said that one can never assume that anything has an absolutely zero chance unless explicitly disproven. However in this case, the probability is so close to zero that I can choose to ignore it with a clear conscience.

[Kaitlyn S]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-07, 11:27, said:

No, only if you take into account your own emotional response to MikeH would you think his posts fit my description. Let me clear this up. This is a scam: "I am the way, the truth, and the light." This is not a scam: "Objective evidence leads me to believe such and such..."

That's what you meant, but that's not what you said. I saw an opportunity to interject some humor into the discussion by taking what you said and showing that it could imply that mikeh was pulling a scam (a clearly ridiculous assumption, so I thought the humor would be obvious to all.)

Like I said, nobody got it. Which means that you all thought I was dead serious. The fact that this is how you all view me is truly sad.

[helene_t]

I am confused. I did actually get an ad for gay sex when I watched the video so maybe there is a connection, but the video itself seems to be about purely platonic relation with extrateristridials. So I don't know where the group sex theory is coming from. Possibly it is a hoax.

[diana_eva]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-07, 12:04, said:

Interesting story. However, it is not going to have the effect that I am going to believe any left leaning story and assume any right-leaning story is bull manure that has spread like wildfire.

I had seen this propagation of false stories by foreign entities before.

However, no matter how ridiculous the story, as long as it's not physically possible, one has to give it some probability of being true.

For example, when I first got an email about Anthony Weiner sending pictures of his wiener, I thought it was probably a hoax, but kept an open mind, realizing that there was some small chance that it was true.

The left say that Donald Trump sexually molested some women that have come forward. While I don't think it happened, I have to put the probability at something greater than zero but less than 100%. I will never know the whole truth unless it happens and Trump admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

The right says, and shows with the O'Keefe video, that Democratic operatives were planning people voting out of state. The left says it was all taken out of context. Did it happen? Again, there is some chance it happened. Not 100%. Again, we will never know unless somebody admits to it, and even then, the person who admits to it may be being blackmailed so I guess we will never know. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

WMD in Iraq? Many think they moved them to another country before the searches. Again, not 0%, not 100%. We'll only know if a reliable source admits to it. The "not true" case can never ever be proven.

I probably related the story before of a friend getting emailed a news story about Obama signing an executive order on Friday afternoon banning the pledge of allegiance from any building receiving federal funding (including public schools.) At the time, it was possible, not 0%, not 100%. My friends all got in a tizzy and were yelling "This traitor must be stopped!" I innocently asked, "Can we verify that this is true?" About 90 seconds of research showed it to be a hoax and we all had a good laugh.

However, just like the Weiner story, any story could potentially be true until it's shown not to be. In the past year, I've developed a greater appreciation for the fact that many of these made-up stories go viral and there are people who benefit from the story who might help the spread of it. Maybe that's why I asked if the Pledge of Allegiance "newsflash" might be a hoax - I've seen it too many times.

This is not about left vs right. It's about how believing stuff without caring to check whether it's true or not hurts real people. Or, to put it in your terms of reason, about how assuming everything is potentially true and even if proven not to be true there is always a reasonable chance that the truth is covered up by evil forces of the universe. Hence in the name of good and justice we'd better get our guns and get some justice done.

[nige1]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-07, 07:46, said:

Nige, hand on heart, do you believe that none of the views posted by Kaitlyn in this thread have been racist? Regardless of this specific case, if someone were to post racist views on BBF do you find it strange to point this out to them, particularly if you suspect that that racism is unintentional and there is therefore a benefit to doing so?

I thought I'd answered you earlier, Zelandakh. In case I didn't, I'll restate my position.

I don't read all posts. Please supply an example. There may be subtle inferences in a post, of which the author is unaware. Hence even when we can discern a racist interpretation, the author might be making a different point entirely.

As Zelandkh implies, I agree that there's a distinction between being a racist and making a racist post. I can't read minds but, like Zelandakh, I doubt that Kaitlyn is a racist.

Anyway, if you regularly criticise ad hominem attacks, you'd be a hypocrite to indulge in them yourself.

The philosophy, intentions and motives of some posters might seem frightening. When we're sufficiently concerned about posts embarrassing their authors, however, we can send them a private message, rather than pillory them in the forum. I'm grateful to members who have messaged me about solecisms of mine.

Again I suggest that we dispute facts and refute arguments rather than criticise individuals.

[Kaitlyn S]

nige1, on 2016-December-07, 12:36, said:

I can't read minds but I doubt that Kaitlyn is a racist.

By their definition I probably am a racist. I believe that Asian parents tend to instill a better work ethic in their children, on average, than white American parents. Because this is an observation based totally on race, a point can be made that I do see the races differently, and am a racist by some definitions.

However, I don't feel I'm doing anything evil by making that observation, and if I am a racist for doing so, then a racist by those people's definition should not be a derogatory term, even though they mean it as such. In fact, on several occasions, I have explained this to my detractors that as long as they use the term racist as they are, I will not consider it a derogatory term, but just a term to describe someone who makes observations that seem quite likely but the PC police and social justice warriors think you should ignore.