necrovore reacted to tadmjones in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence
Was every allegation of fraud proven false by forensic examination of the ballots?
Were the elections in every state carried out according to their own and federal constitutional requirements?
Most cases were dismissed on standing and other jurisprudential findings , not on a full hearing of evidence or discovery.
Did TX and seventeen other states irrationally petition SCOTUS ? Sycophants the lot ?
necrovore got a reaction from dream_weaver in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence
I suppose on the "speech has consequences" front, Glenn Greenwald has written a pretty good article citing a 1982 Supreme Court case which ruled that, if you speak, you can't automatically be held legally responsible for "inciting" the actions of people who commit violence, of their own will, as a result of your speech.
The same legal reasoning would apply to Donald Trump. Even if some people were inspired to violence as a result of his speech, his speech is still protected under the First Amendment.
The same reasoning applies to Stephen King, too, who has written (decades ago now) about how a very small number of his fans have turned out to be creepy serial killers and such. Even if such people find Stephen King inspiring, that is not Stephen King's fault. I'm sure he'd rather not have them as fans. But, importantly, he is not legally liable for their illegal actions, either.
Luckily he wasn't dragged into court, the way the band Judas Priest was, when two of their fans committed suicide and it was alleged that their music "caused" the suicides. (The band won that case.)
I'm sure that Donald Trump has had some fans that he'd rather not have.
necrovore got a reaction from Yes in Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence
I have a hunch that this will turn out to be a false-flag operation done by Antifa people, sort of like the attempted kidnapping of that governor a while back. The press went on and on about that, remember? Until when the perpetrators were discovered to be associated with Antifa, at which point the press suddenly fell silent...
This move was probably designed to intimidate Republicans out of objecting to the electoral votes of states where fraud turned the election. The Democrats are already giving the "shame on you Republicans" speeches, as if the invasion of the Capitol was caused by Republican objections. "See what kind of behavior your objections are encouraging?" they seem to be saying.
Trump never asked for anyone to do anything like this. There is nothing to protest yet -- the process hasn't even played out yet and, without interference, could conceivably have come out Trump's way. There is no reason for Trump to have interfered with it, or to have encouraged anyone else to -- and there is every reason for the Democrats to have done so.
And yet, we hear again that "Trump's rhetoric" is to blame. But Trump isn't the one who has been saying "Burn it all down"...
Funny how calling out fraud and trying to investigate it allegedly destroys democracy and undermines the system -- but committing the fraud in the first place is apparently OK. Obviously the honorable thing for the Republicans to do is to drop all their objections and allow the Democrats to get away with it (sarcasm).
necrovore got a reaction from Jon Letendre in 2020 Election Statistical Anomaly?
I'm curious what people think of this... I'd like to see a list of all the states this is happening in, and I'd like to know the probability that it could happen by chance.
I mean, regardless of what you may think of the source... these are actual numbers, and it should be possible to check them... right?
necrovore got a reaction from Jonathan Weissberg in Conceptual Frequency List
[In response to Jonathan's original post]
I don't think one can learn philosophy in the same way that one learns a foreign language. When you learn a foreign language, you are mostly learning new words (and grammatical constructions) for concepts that you already know, such as learning that the Japanese word テレビ is "television" and so forth. You don't learn anything new about televisions by learning the word テレビ.
That's a fundamentally different process from the one you would use to learn entirely new concepts, and it's also different from the process you would use to add "depth of understanding" to concepts you already know. These are the processes in play when you learn a philosophy.
For these, it seems like the important thing is being able to give examples of a concept, and being able to identify the concept from examples of it. It might also be important to be able to identify that some things are not examples of a concept, and why they are not.
Knowing how to define the concept will help a great deal with this. (Recall, the "definition" of a concept serves to distinguish the concept from other concepts, and is usually written as "genus" and "differentia.")
I think reduction can also be helpful, but I'm not sure it's fundamental.
For learning a new concept, consider how you would explain "television" to someone who had never seen one before.
For adding "depth of understanding," consider how your understanding of "television" would change if you learned how to build one.
p.s. On further thought, I want to recommend Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology as a good book to read through.