InfraBeat

I don't know what that means other than that you don't have an argument.

Whitewater was over four years from start of the investigation until the release of the report. The Blagojevich investigation took fours before his arrest. The John Edwards investigation took more than two years before his indictment. Should we look up other cases of magnitude to see how long they took? Or should we just take tadmjones at his word that the timing can only be accounted for by political motivations? This would be to take the word of someone who claims, without a mote of evidence that U.S. news companies colluded with the Biden campaign to make Covid seem worse than it is, for the purpose of changing election laws; moreover, tadmjones most recent claim that the Covid shutdowns WORLDWIDE were for the purpose of getting Trump out of office. I have this question for tadmjones also: Read the indictment. But switch the parties and the candidates so that the defendant is Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Could you really, with a straight face, report here that the indictment is without merit? Really?

It is case of great magnitude. It is not a given that it would not take a long time to arrive at an indictment. Your supposition is not supported. And even if the motivation were merely political, that would not make the evidence not exist. / The Mueller report was not fraud. You assert an election "coverup". Your basis is discredited crackpot websites. / A ludicrous claim you cannot support. Is that recognition of U.S. military/corporate imperialism in Central America?

Your argument is mildly humorous. Of course that's false. On the other hand, there are many people who claim, without proof, that the election was stolen; and we find that, for them, the final court rulings and refutations will never be enough. Contrast that with Gore accepting the final court ruling, and not conspiring to send false electors, even though Democrats took the majority opinion to be grievously argued. I'm still interested: Read the indictment. But switch the parties and the candidates so that the defendant is Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Could you really, with a straight face, report here that the indictment is without merit? Really?

What's your point?

The banana republics say that, too. That's a lousy argument. You could use that reply to anyone to assert their fault. If you said, "Jack lied to the company that Sally is embezzling just so he could get her job". Then someone says, "No, he honestly reported her embezzling because it's wrong and he took it as his duty to report it". Then you say, "That's what job grabbers all say".

I enjoyed the irony that the poster linked to an article that defines 'banana republic' contrary to the poster's insinuation, by linking to the article, that the United States is a banana republic. Yes, we know the connotations of the term, but it's not supported even in a broad connotative sense that the United States is acting like a banana republic. This is the first time such an event has happened because it's the first time in history that any American president has done* the kind of things charged in the indictment. * Though, of course, Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But do you claim there are any statements of facts that are not correct in the indictment? It is a "between a rock and a hard place" situation. A democracy doesn't want to be criminally prosecuting political candidates, but a democracy also doesn't want to allow officials and candidates to criminally conspire to overturn an election. As to the fact that there is a lack of bipartisanship, one could as easily fault the member of the party out of office for their lack of integrity and principle in their outlandish excuses, obfuscations and dishonest arguments made to save their hero. McCarthy even made the argument that Democrats who disputed the 2000 election and the 2016 election were not indicted. Of course they weren't, because they didn't conspire to defraud, obstruct and deny rights. Arguments like McCarthy's are so transparently dishonest, illustrating that the fact that it predominately Democrats that want to pursue the case is a function indeed of Republican lack of integrity and principle. This question doesn't bear upon Trump's guilt or innocence, but I am interested: Read the indictment. But switch the parties and the candidates so that the defendant is Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Could you really, with a straight face, report here that the indictment is without merit? Really?

Got it. Thanks. Yes, I recognized that. Meanwhile, my comment pertained to Rand's and Peikoff's (which, if I recall, are quotes of Rand) own definitions as they gave them.

(1) I don't have the book 'The Virtue Of Selfishness'. Would you please quote the book saying which dictionary she meant? [Or maybe you meant to say 'did not'?] (2) That you think the common definition is not by essentials or is spin, doesn't change the fact that Rand's definition is not the common definition. (3) That you think that Rand's definition is by essentials and without spin is evidence that she referenced a dictionary that did not include the "exclusively" part. (Maybe she did, and maybe there was or is such a dictionary, but there's no evidence of it yet here.) The dictionary definitions are not slang. I don't agree. But even if I did, it's not the point. The point was merely that the Objectivist definition (whether one likes that definition or not) is not the common definition (whether one likes that definition of not).

(1) Whatever Aristotle said, the word 'logic' has a common meaning and also is used in the field of study in way that is basically aligned with that common meaning, as I adduced a number of definitions when you asked me about this the first time. (2) What definition of 'logic' by Aristotle do you refer to? (3) Even granting that Aristotle's notion of necessity differs in certain ways, do you think his notion is not generally aligned with the notion of entailment? (1) The dictionary definitions look pretty good to me at getting to the essentials. 2) The point was not even as to essentionality or any other criteria. Merely I said that Rand's definition is not the common definition. And my point did not enlist specialized non-Objectivist meanings. As I said, the Objectivist definition is not the common definition.

So you linked to an article that doesn't reduce the term that way. There's no point made in getting people to click to and read an article that doesn't even support you, other than as a gratuitous flourish.

The presidential election is a federal election. That's not a code being charged. I'd be curious to see whether the defense would argue that the United States does not have a basis to charge a defendant for conspiracy to defraud, obstruct and deny rights regarding the election of the president as constitutionally through a federal election is subject to federal laws and rules, meeting of the Electoral College (which is not an entity of just an individual state) and a meeting of Congress. Moreover, I don't see that one cannot attempt to defraud the United States through fraud carried out against individual states. If someone attempts to defraud a state in such a way to make the state fraudulent in reporting election results and to send false electors, then it seems hard to argue that that is not thereby an attempt to defraud the United States.

A link to a page in which 'banana republic' is defined so that we see that the United States has not been and is not now a banana republic.

Why would one ask such a pointless question? They wouldn't be indicted as co-conspirators merely for making certain statements while not being part of a conspiracy to defraud, obstruct or deny rights.

So "the indictment is based on denying free speech" will be central strawman canard. The charge is not that Trump lied, but rather that he lied as part of a conspiracy to defraud, to obstruct and to deny rights. Anyone has the freedom to lie, "This watch is made of gold" as no one is thereby defrauded, but not when selling the watch as the buyer is then defrauded. Anyone is free to say many of the claims about the election mentioned in the indictment, but the indictment is not just about making those claims but the role of those claims in a conspiracy to defraud, obstruct and deny rights. One may disagree that the indictment is sufficient evidence, but it's a sophomoric, specious strawman to characterize the indictment as tantamount to prosecution for exercise of free speech.

So I take it now that I should regard you as not invoking that notion and that earlier mentions no longer have any role here. That brings me back to the question: Do humans use only reason and no instincts and do animals use only instincts and no reason? You've talked about that, but I don't see a crisp decision. And others may wish to declare. (And, of course, if 'use' is not a good word (I don't recall whether Rand of Peikoff say 'use') then we may adopt whatever reasonable alternative we wish.)

What dictionary was that? She said "the dictionary". But there is not just one dictionary that is "the" dictionary. Unless there's a citation in her writing (maybe there is?), I have no way of knowing what actual dictionary, if any, she was citing. I looked at 'Merriam-Webster' from the early 1960s. It's possible that other dictionaries in general use at the time left out the part about "exclusively" or similar. But I very much doubt that is the case, or at least there is no evidence here that it is. And the two other examples I gave. My point stands that Objectivism has special senses for certain words. That can make discussions awkward if, for instance, one wishes to use 'logic' in its ordinary sense but doing so would be unclear since Objectivism has its own definition.

I told you where he said it. OPAR quoting Rand. I don't see anywhere that you address that 'man' is defined in terms of 'rational' and 'rationality is defined in terms of 'reason', which is defined in terms of 'man'.

However logic is used, my point was about the definition of the word 'logic'. definition [Merriam-Webster] "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning" definition [Oxford Reference] "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity; a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference" definition [Dictionary.com] "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference." definition [Britannica] "the study of correct reasoning, especially as it involves the drawing of inferences" definition [vocabulary.com] "the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference" Those definitions are stated in terms of inference (usually mentioning 'valid'), while Rand's definition is stated in terms of non-contradictory identification: definition [Rand] "logic is the art of non-contradictory identification" One may argue that inference and identification are the same, but that's not a given, especially at the level of an immediate definition. Moreover, the usual notion of validity is not mere non-contradiction but rather entailment. However we should also account for inductive logic (and not necessarily precluding that there are other forms of logic too): [Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy] "logic of evidential support [...] the truth of the premises provides some degree of support for the truth of the conclusion" Other, less technical, sources describe induction as inference from particular to general. [Rand] "Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests." But that is not the dictionary definition: [Merriam-Webster] "selfish: 1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others" [Dictionary.com] "selfishness: the quality or state of caring only for oneself or one's own interests" [Cambridge Dictionary] "selfishness: the quality of thinking only of your own advantage" [Wikipedia] "selfishness: being concerned excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others" [Collins] "selfish: car[ing] only about [oneself], and not about other people" [vocabulary.com] "selfish: cares only about [oneself] and doesn't consider others" [Britannica] "selfish: having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people" [YourDictionary] "selfish: Too much concerned with one's own welfare or interests and having little or no concern for others" [Oxford Learner's] "selfish: caring only about yourself rather than about other people" All of those are unlike Rand's definition as they include not just concern with one's own interests but also a sense expressed as "without regard for others" or "disregard for others" or "only for oneself" or "not about other people" etc. It's not in question that humans use reason to a vastly greater extent than other animals. But the point was about the notion of 'reason' as essential in formation of the definition of 'man'. In response to DavidOdden, I was interested in, at least as a starting point, to be clear, whether animals do not use reason at all and whether humans do not use instincts at all. There are no word games being played here. And my point about common usage came from an aside I made that discussions are sometimes more awkward due to difference in definitions, as Rand does use special definitions. I made no claim that facts are challenged by the fact that definitions differ.

[David Odden]"“Instinctual knowledge” is generally used to refer to innate knowledge, that is, knowledge which is genetically predetermined and not learned from experience. I would not devise a definition of “knowledge” according to which only humans have “knowledge”. You could call it a cognitive program of some sorts, which governs behavior. It isn’t a short-term spinal chord reaction, and it isn’t an immediate emotional response. It is not an ability (for example, the human ability to reason is not knowledge, it is a faculty). As the name implies, instinctual knowledge is a kind of knowledge." I can't see how that can be consistent with your view that "The idea of instinctual or innate knowledge does not make sense." Tell it to Leonard Peikoff. I quoted OPAR quoting Rand. I don't think so. What kind of behavior do you think it is? [David Odden] "We do not have instinctual knowledge that certain berries are poisonous or that certain creatures are dangerous – we have to learn this from observation and reason." I took that to contrast animals with humans. But if that's not the case, then: [David Odden] "numerous animal instincts can reasonably be said to constitute a kind of knowledge that they already know, the only good candidates for instinct in humans are particular feelings, which are not knowledge." Again, I took that as contrasting certain animals with instincts that are a kind of knowledge with humans who have no such kind of knowledge. [David Odden] "It seems reasonable to think that octopuses have what qualifies as “instinctual knowledge”, in terms of their ability to mimic other animals. Though again, I don’t know to what extent this is instinctual rather than learned stochastically." I take that to be saying that it is reasonable to say that octopi have instinctual knowledge.

Regarding the notion of instinctual knowledge, if animals have it, then it would be surprising if humans don't have it too. It would be amazing that humans evolved to shed the human species of all vestiges of a capacity had by animals such as apes.

Here's a problem: Definition: man is the rational animal. Definition: rationality is the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's judge of values and only guide to action. Definition: reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. 'man' is defined in terms of rationality. 'rationality' is defined in terms of 'reason'. 'reason' is defined in terms of 'man'. That is circular.

David Odden disagrees. Are you saying that animals don't have any learned behaviors? Moreover, is it a genetically determined behavior to cut up a piece of paper to get rewarded for returning each of the individual pieces rather than just the one original piece?

I've hinted no such thing. That is ridiculous. As before, please do not make a strawman. When you wrote "Man’s special tool for existence is “use reason”, not “turn color when threatened” or “run fast”.", did you mean that turning color is a tool? More generally, what is your definition of 'tool' and 'special tool'? That's not what is reported. Anyway, I also gave the example of dolphins, at least as reported. The question arises whether that is an application of reason. If not, then on what basis is it determined that it is not?

I edited my post before seeing your reply. Anyway, you mentioned 'tools' in a way that I would take as saying that changing color is a tool while using reason is a different tool.