Author Topic: Trump vs Twitter  (Read 6036 times)

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3862
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #40 on: June 01, 2020, 06:02:26 PM »
Quote
We can use prone to lying or lying. The liar is more prone to lying. That's just semantics. I'm not trying to "change the argument."

What am I cherry picking, exactly?

If it's just semantics, why are you referencing studies on "pathological liars"?
And I've already explained what you cherry picked in my previous post.

------I would imagine that if genetics plays a role with pathological liars it also plays a role with less extreme liars. Some people have brains that are hardwired to be honest and some dishonest. Don't you think that Trump is a  pathological liar? If so, and it's genetic, shouldn't his community also be a protected class? If you criticism/condemn/question them, why isn't that considered hate speech?

Moving on, do you have the stomach to come out and say it:

Homosexuality is a choice
Lying is an involuntary genetic trait


------No, I don't know how much of a choice anyone really has with anything. I think genetics play a factor but it's quite clear there are other factors involved too. I will say that the science seems to suggest that pathological lying or cheating is at least an involuntary genetic trait as sexuality. As a result, they could be considered a protected class. If someone says that adultery is "wrong" then that should be considered hate speech. I'm sure Trump would agree.  ;)


I should hope not lest your credibility evaporate before our very eyes.

Quote
There is actually a fair amount of evidence that liars are genetically programmed that way (another way to say hardwired):
Such a statement makes me wonder if you do not understand genetic science (not as if I am any expert, by the way) but instead are drawing spurious conclusions to support your belief.

You can draw a genetic link to any human trait, as your own evidences make reference - assuming you've actually read them. A genetic link does not indicate whether those traits are voluntary or not.

-----A genetic link does imply that an outcome is more likely though. Does it not?

Quote
Impact has nothing to do with my argument. Why would it?
Now you've contorted yourself into absurdity.

-----How do you measure impact? For instance, does Trump hurt more people than the average homosexual? Yes, of course (and so did Obama-and every other president).

But what about the impact to our species? If we had all evolved to be homosexual, the species would have died out (in all likelihood). So a liar would actually be less of a (negative) impact since we have a higher chance of survival.

Now, one can argue that liars are actually more harmful in the modern day since we can do artificial insemination and what not. That's why the "impact" question isn't fair. You can't measure it or even have knowledge of what the impact really is.
Paul


ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8042
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #41 on: June 01, 2020, 06:16:12 PM »
-----How do you measure impact? For instance, does Trump hurt more people than the average homosexual? Yes, of course (and so did Obama-and every other president).

Why are you asking if some people are more harmful than "the average homosexual"?

That reads very poorly.

But what about the impact to our species? If we had all evolved to be homosexual, the species would have died out (in all likelihood). So a liar would actually be less of a (negative) impact since we have a higher chance of survival.

You ought to be careful here.

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3862
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2020, 07:33:35 PM »
-----How do you measure impact? For instance, does Trump hurt more people than the average homosexual? Yes, of course (and so did Obama-and every other president).

Why are you asking if some people are more harmful than "the average homosexual"?

That reads very poorly.

But what about the impact to our species? If we had all evolved to be homosexual, the species would have died out (in all likelihood). So a liar would actually be less of a (negative) impact since we have a higher chance of survival.

You ought to be careful here.

I agree. I was watching my kids (a 3 year old and 1 year old) as I wrote it so it was poorly worded. Sorry about that. I was trying submit in the short period I had when they didn't want to play hide and go see...or trying to bite me since I didn't know when I would get the chance to reply.  :-X

But, like I said, I agree with you. My mistake on that one.

The message that I was trying to get is lc's definition of "impact." He said I was cheery picking because I wasn't differentiating between the impact of the two (lying vs sexuality). I think it's pointless to discuss the impact because a) it's subjective b) you can't measure it. I was simply trying to demonstrate that impact is very, very hard to define (it's super subjective). 

For the careful comment, I don't think my logic is too far off on that but I'm willing to listen. Let me flesh that out a bit since the kids are in bed. Again, I'm not talking about the morality of anything here - simply of what increases the odds of humanity surviving (or impact as lc might say).

If one group of ancient humans produced 90% liars/cheaters/abusers (little Trumps) and 10% of folks that were attracted to the same gender (will call them Tribe A) and then another group (Tribe B) produced 90% who liked the same gender and 10% little Trumps, I would have to bet that Tribe A would probably have better survival odds since there would be more incidents of procreation.

Now that certainly doesn't guarantee it by any means. Group B would most likely have superior morals (but you don't believe such thing exists, right? I don't see how you honestly could!) or take better care of each other and they might survivie. But if all of those things were equal with the tribes, it seems to me that Tribe A would be the more likey to survive simply because there would be more of them doing activies which encourage procreation. I don't see how this is controversial but perhaps I'm wrong. 

I've told you before, Eric. Before you, I was a pretty hardcore liberal agnostic. You (helped) make me a theist (and oh yeah, helped on the financial security part, too!).  I followed the logic and reason and that's why I'm a thiest.

Either superior morals really do exist or they don't. If atheism is accurate morals are more akin to manners (something that someone just made up a long time ago) or simple opinions and as a result, we shouldn't be so irrationally attached to them.

If moral truths really do exist, then it makes sense to be attached to them because they go beyond our personal opinion on manners. In fact, it's rational to fight for them in that case because they are bigger than us.

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted" as Dostoevsky said (even if your opinion of that action is negative).

There is no superior morality so it's silly to be upset with what Trump says or does because your (and mine and lc's) manners...err morality are just as insightful or correct.

Or, another way to look at it, I don't claim to have more insight into the "superior color" either. If Trump likes orange and I like green, it's all good. If Trump wants to lie and I want to live honestly, it's all good. And the same system (evolutionary instincts) is driving morality so there is no basis to think one action is better or worse just like there is no reason to think one color is better or worse. Nothing more, nothing less.

With that said, at least I'm trying to not avoid or ignore some of the points the other party is making. ;)

By the way, I hope this is worded better and is fairly clear. I spent something like 14 hours with the kids and I'm a little fried.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 07:36:45 PM by stahleyp »
Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4771
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #43 on: June 01, 2020, 07:59:15 PM »
Quote
-----How do you measure impact? For instance, does Trump hurt more people than the average homosexual? Yes, of course (and so did Obama-and every other president).

We're not talking about Trump, we're talking about why Trump was discriminated.
The act of lying vs. being a homosexual human.

You say we cannot measure the impact in order to compare. I disagree.

Being a homosexual has as little direct impact as being a heterosexual. Homosexuality does not cause problems - biases from other humans cause problems. The same we see today - black people are not the problem, racist cops are the problem.

Whereas lying can directly cause a host of problems, massive in nature in some cases, to perfectly un-bigoted, fine, upstanding people. If Bernie Madoff was gay rather than a liar, a lot of grief would have been avoided, for example.

Quote
If one group of ancient humans produced 90% liars/cheaters/abusers (little Trumps) and 10% of folks that were attracted to the same gender (will call them Tribe A) and then another group (Tribe B) produced 90% who liked the same gender and 10% little Trumps, I would have to bet that Tribe A would probably have better survival odds since there would be more incidents of procreation.
When reality does not fit your needs - create a fantasy which does, then attempt to convince everyone that the fantasy is real. The religious solution.

First, there is no known human society with a majority of homosexuals. So you're arguing make-believe.

Second, I could just as easily say all the liars/cheaters would kill each other in fits of adulterous rage while the homosexuals had sex as god intended (just for kids) once a year, then went back to their carnal pursuits. You can't prove me wrong because as I mentioned you've moved from reality to fantasy in order to justify your conclusion.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 08:01:13 PM by LC »
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3862
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #44 on: June 01, 2020, 08:16:40 PM »
Quote
-----How do you measure impact? For instance, does Trump hurt more people than the average homosexual? Yes, of course (and so did Obama-and every other president).

We're not talking about Trump, we're talking about why Trump was discriminated.
The act of lying vs. being a homosexual human.

You say we cannot measure the impact in order to compare. I disagree.

Being a homosexual has as little direct impact as being a heterosexual. Homosexuality does not cause problems - biases from other humans cause problems. The same we see today - black people are not the problem, racist cops are the problem.

Whereas lying can directly cause a host of problems, massive in nature in some cases, to perfectly un-bigoted, fine, upstanding people. If Bernie Madoff was gay rather than a liar, a lot of grief would have been avoided, for example.

Quote
If one group of ancient humans produced 90% liars/cheaters/abusers (little Trumps) and 10% of folks that were attracted to the same gender (will call them Tribe A) and then another group (Tribe B) produced 90% who liked the same gender and 10% little Trumps, I would have to bet that Tribe A would probably have better survival odds since there would be more incidents of procreation.
When reality does not fit your needs - create a fantasy which does, then attempt to convince everyone that the fantasy is real. The religious solution.

First, there is no known human society with a majority of homosexuals. So you're arguing make-believe.

Second, I could just as easily say all the liars/cheaters would kill each other in fits of adulterous rage while the homosexuals had sex as god intended (just for kids) once a year, then went back to their carnal pursuits. You can't prove me wrong because as I mentioned you've moved from reality to fantasy in order to justify your conclusion.
I tried to flesh out my arguments better in the above post to Eric. I worded it poorly.

And I'm saying that if atheism is accurate those biases of humans are okay  (whether it's being racist or against homosexuals or anything else for that matter) because all of them are just evolutionary instincts (just like sexuality).

Homosexuality is okay, heterosexuality is okay, lying is okay, honesty is okay, racism is okay as is sexism as is a desire for equality. They are all simply (and only) evolutionary instincts. None more right or wrong than another. Anymore than green is superior to yellow. Since you have no basis to think one ideal is superior, why are you so sure you do?

There is no moral truth, lc! If there is no moral truth, why is being a racist "wrong?" It isn't. Your just indoctrinated to think it is because you grew up in the West. The West's views of human rights is highly influenced by this passage:

Genesis 1:27 "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

So humans aren't just like any other animal but each of us have significance because we are made in the image of God. So, if you're a theist, you have a reason to fight racism. If you're an atheist...well, we're all just animals anyway, so what's the big deal? Racism probably helped us survive in the past so why think it's bad?

In fact, racism is a part of every culture. It's a part of our humanity - just like sexuality. It's not like human rights exist or that people are made in God's image or something.
Paul

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8042
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #45 on: June 01, 2020, 08:24:05 PM »
There is no moral truth,

It's settled then, there is nothing wrong with Twitter saying what they like about Trump's posts.  Your argument can be used to say that Twitter's commentary is no worse than their silence.

Parsad

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8943
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #46 on: June 01, 2020, 08:29:34 PM »
Quote
-----How do you measure impact? For instance, does Trump hurt more people than the average homosexual? Yes, of course (and so did Obama-and every other president).

We're not talking about Trump, we're talking about why Trump was discriminated.
The act of lying vs. being a homosexual human.

You say we cannot measure the impact in order to compare. I disagree.

Being a homosexual has as little direct impact as being a heterosexual. Homosexuality does not cause problems - biases from other humans cause problems. The same we see today - black people are not the problem, racist cops are the problem.

Whereas lying can directly cause a host of problems, massive in nature in some cases, to perfectly un-bigoted, fine, upstanding people. If Bernie Madoff was gay rather than a liar, a lot of grief would have been avoided, for example.

Quote
If one group of ancient humans produced 90% liars/cheaters/abusers (little Trumps) and 10% of folks that were attracted to the same gender (will call them Tribe A) and then another group (Tribe B) produced 90% who liked the same gender and 10% little Trumps, I would have to bet that Tribe A would probably have better survival odds since there would be more incidents of procreation.
When reality does not fit your needs - create a fantasy which does, then attempt to convince everyone that the fantasy is real. The religious solution.

First, there is no known human society with a majority of homosexuals. So you're arguing make-believe.

Second, I could just as easily say all the liars/cheaters would kill each other in fits of adulterous rage while the homosexuals had sex as god intended (just for kids) once a year, then went back to their carnal pursuits. You can't prove me wrong because as I mentioned you've moved from reality to fantasy in order to justify your conclusion.
I tried to flesh out my arguments better in the above post to Eric. I worded it poorly.

And I'm saying that if atheism is accurate those biases of humans are okay  (whether it's being racist or against homosexuals or anything else for that matter) because all of them are just evolutionary instincts (just like sexuality).

Homosexuality is okay, heterosexuality is okay, lying is okay, honesty is okay, racism is okay as is sexism as is a desire for equality. They are all simply (and only) evolutionary instincts. None more right or wrong than another. Anymore than green is superior to yellow. Since you have no basis to think one ideal is superior, why are you so sure you do?

There is no moral truth, lc! If there is no moral truth, why is being a racist "wrong?" It isn't. Your just indoctrinated to think it is because you grew up in the West. The West's views of human rights is highly influenced by this passage:

Genesis 1:27 "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

So humans aren't just like any other animal but each of us have significance because we are made in the image of God. So, if you're a theist, you have a reason to fight racism. If you're an atheist...well, we're all just animals anyway, so what's the big deal? Racism probably helped us survive in the past so why think it's bad?

In fact, racism is a part of every culture. It's a part of our humanity - just like sexuality. It's not like human rights exist or that people are made in God's image or something.

You're assuming that there is only one truth...either religion and morals exist or religion and morality do not exist.  That a society without religion cannot construct a moral code...and we know that this is completely possible.  Just because someone doesn't believe in religion, doesn't mean that morality goes out the window.  AI may not believe in religion, but AI can be programmed to have a moral code...it's not different for human beings.   

The other part of your analogy about homosexuals and tribes also isn't accurate.  Since homosexuals exist in all tribes and species.  You are correct in one perspective...humans are different...we have the choice to act in ways that may be contrary to what nature would make us believe is most productive.  that being said, nature decides homosexuality...while nurture decides on who becomes a liar.  Cheers!
No man is a failure who has friends!

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3862
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #47 on: June 01, 2020, 08:33:26 PM »
There is no moral truth,

It's settled then, there is nothing wrong with Twitter saying what they like about Trump's posts.

Eric, I spent a lot of time on that post and that's all you got? :(

Well, since you agree that no moral truth exists (which is ultimately where atheism leads and why I rejected it), why are you so forceful with your views on morality?

Surely you must then agree that being racist or anti-homosexual or sexist is okay too since no moral truth exists? The people with those moral values are just as right as you.

If moral truths do not exist, why have such strong opinions? Why trust what yours tell you?

Color truths also do not exist so why don't you go on and on about the color of Trump's shirt? Why are you so much more passionate about morality than colors? Is one more "real" than the other? If so, how does that fit with your atheism?
Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4771
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #48 on: June 01, 2020, 08:39:25 PM »
Paul, I read your post (it inspired me to pour a 3rd drink) and you've simply shifted the goal posts again.

Now you've moved from "can we even measure the impact of both?" (yes, we can), to your natural fallback position when you're up against a wall: "well that doesn't matter because according to atheists nothing even matters because blah blah jesus god naptime snore zzz"

Sorry to be a little mocking (Again, I'm on old fashioned #3  :o :o) but this is the Nth time you've made this same argument, which at this point has been refuted by, well, half the COBF forum at this point!

If I may be so bold to suggest suspending your disbelief and imagining, pretending, hell, even lying to yourself*...that atheists can have a moral code which is valid across human society, and attempting to argue your same point from that perspective. I suspect the conversations will be more thoughtful for everyone and not devolve into the "blahblahblah" i mentioned above.

*Which brings me back to another point: "lying" can actually be useful and not harmful (or less harmful than the truth) in some cases! It is not arbitrary, which is further reason to actually discriminate on this basis - rather than an arbitrary factor such as sexuality.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 08:42:56 PM by LC »
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3862
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #49 on: June 01, 2020, 08:53:05 PM »
Paul, I read your post (it inspired me to pour a 3rd drink) and you've simply shifted the goal posts again.

Now you've moved from "can we even measure the impact of both?" (yes, we can), to your natural fallback position when you're up against a wall: "well that doesn't matter because according to atheists nothing even matters because blah blah jesus god naptime snore zzz"

Sorry to be a little mocking (Again, I'm on old fashioned #3  :o :o) but this is the Nth time you've made this same argument, which at this point has been refuted by, well, half the COBF forum at this point!

If I may be so bold to suggest suspending your disbelief and imagining, pretending, hell, even lying to yourself*...that atheists can have a moral code which is valid across human society, and attempting to argue your same point from that perspective. I suspect the conversations will be more thoughtful for everyone and not devolve into the "blahblahblah" i mentioned above.

*Which brings me back to another point: "lying" can actually be useful and not harmful (or less harmful than the truth) in some cases! It is not arbitrary, which is further reason to actually discriminate on this basis - rather than an arbitrary factor such as sexuality.

Honestly, I'm not trying to move goal posts. You frequently don't answer my questions so I try to word them differently.

Yes, atheists can have a moral code. I have never denied that. I'm simply saying that if you're atheist, why think your moral code is better than Trump's (or Hitler or whoever)? Why do you trust it? Why shouldn't someone follow Trump's moral code over yours? Why do things that are against your best interest if morality is totally subjective? Don't you agree that you and Trump have the same insight into morality?
Paul