New York Times Goes Full HuffPo: Compares Comey To Sexual Harassed Women

[Fluffernutter]

Jerry didn't want to be hugged

 

[Deleted member 491001]

That is not how logic works.



"Trump said (X)" is no reason at all to believe (X).

If there is no reason to believe X, that does not imply an assertion about -X.

You're on the edge of going back to ignore.

While I'm honored to learn I was on ignore, you statement "no reason at all" means that he's never been truthful before and that's just how it is.

And believe me, I want there to be open dialogue between everyone so we can keep figuring out what's going on in the world, so I honestly not trying to push your buttons or anything.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It is rather bizarre that a privileged 6'8" white male who was head of the FBI is being compared to a victim of sexual assault. By leftist logic, does that mean that a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer was treated like a sexual assault victim because he was questioned by the justice system?

 

[Jack V Savage]

While I'm honored to learn I was on ignore, you statement "no reason at all" means that he's never been truthful before and that's just how it is.

And believe me, I want there to be open dialogue between everyone so we can keep figuring out what's going on in the world, so I honestly not trying to push your buttons or anything.

Not sure what your basis for reading "no reason at all to believe X" as an assertion that not X is necessarily true. It pretty obviously means that the truth or falsity of X is utterly irrelevant to the listed condition. Think of it in a context where your partisan passions are not inflamed. If you say, "the Red Sox are undefeated this year on the third day of the month," and I say, "there's no reason at all to think that it being the third of the month makes them more likely to win," would you interpret that as me saying that the Red Sox cannot win on the third of the month?

And it's not about pushing buttons; it's about avoiding having to explain obvious stuff like that.

It is rather bizarre that a privileged 6'8" white male who was head of the FBI is being compared to a victim of sexual assault. By leftist logic, does that mean that a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer was treated like a sexual assault victim because he was questioned by the justice system?

My God, that is a terrible analogy. Read the piece.

 

[Orgasmo]

5 rounds fight between Comey and Trump on PPV

Comey by KO round 2

 

[Sir Galahad]

This is not an Onion article...they really wrote this shit.

A man is being publicly grilled about why he was alone in a room with someone he felt was threatening him. Why didn’t he simply resign if he felt uncomfortable with what his boss was asking him to do? Why did he keep taking calls from that boss, even if he thought they were inappropriate? Why didn’t he just come out and say he would not do what the boss was asking for?

Sound familiar? As dozens of people noted immediately on Twitter, if you switch genders, that is the experience of many women in sexual harassment cases. James Comey, the former director of the F.B.I., explained to senators during today’s hearing that he felt acutely uneasy and hesitant to directly confront his boss, the president of the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/...world-of-sexual-harassment-in-the-office.html











View attachment 237295

Proof Comey is a liberal puss.

 

[Jack V Savage]

5 rounds fight between Comey and Trump on PPV

Comey by KO round 2

Realistically, there's no way in hell Trump has the stamina to get out of the first round. He'd tap to a heavybag before five minutes passed.

 

[brothir]

While I'm honored to learn I was on ignore, you statement "no reason at all" means that he's never been truthful before and that's just how it is.

That's not the case. If we look at "no reason", then it's clear that there's no leeway there in terms of there being a reason: you can't nudge it slightly and suddenly there's a reason. There being a reason is (asserted to be) completely precluded. Otherwise he would've said "usually no reason" or "generally no reason", statements that do admit of the possibility of either or, and hence have leeway to them and do not completely preclude anything.

If we now add "at all" to it, then what really happens? There being a reason is now completely precluded even harder? How does that work? "No reason at all" is a pleonasm: the presence or absence of "at all" doesn't affect what you can logically deduce from it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

This is not an Onion article...they really wrote this shit.

A man is being publicly grilled about why he was alone in a room with someone he felt was threatening him. Why didn’t he simply resign if he felt uncomfortable with what his boss was asking him to do? Why did he keep taking calls from that boss, even if he thought they were inappropriate? Why didn’t he just come out and say he would not do what the boss was asking for?

Sound familiar? As dozens of people noted immediately on Twitter, if you switch genders, that is the experience of many women in sexual harassment cases. James Comey, the former director of the F.B.I., explained to senators during today’s hearing that he felt acutely uneasy and hesitant to directly confront his boss, the president of the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/...world-of-sexual-harassment-in-the-office.html











View attachment 237295

Sounds like some women got annoyed no one was talking about them and only cared about the Comey hearing so they somehow made the Comey hearing about themselves. Seriously wtf does this have to do with anything? I mean I get the comparison and I guess its sort of clever in a way but its a meme-tier observation, not something I'd think substantive enough for a NYT piece.

 

[Deleted member 491001]

That's not the case. If we look at "no reason", then it's clear that there's no leeway there in terms of there being a reason: you can't nudge it slightly and suddenly there's a reason. There being a reason is (asserted to be) completely precluded. Otherwise he would've said "usually no reason" or "generally no reason", statements that do admit of the possibility of either or, and hence have leeway to them and do not completely preclude anything.

If we now add "at all" to it, then what really happens? There being a reason is now completely precluded even harder? How does that work? "No reason at all" is a pleonasm: the presence or absence of "at all" doesn't affect what you can logically deduce from it.

Good point. The statement is already absolute without the pleonasm. Great word btw, hadn't heard that before.

Would you agree that due to Trump having told the truth before Jack's statement disproves Jack's assertion due to precedence? Or do you think that Trump adding that he'd be willing to testify under oath makes it so we can't outright dismiss things he says as definitely false?

 

[Jack V Savage]

If we now add "at all" to it, then what really happens? There being a reason is now completely precluded even harder? How does that work? "No reason at all" is a pleonasm: the presence or absence of "at all" doesn't affect what you can logically deduce from it.

Right. It's just for emphasis.

Good point. The statement is already absolute without the pleonasm. Great word btw, hadn't heard that before.

Would you agree that due to Trump having told the truth before Jack's statement disproves Jack's assertion due to precedence?

How could it?

My claim is that Trump saying something doesn't give us any information about objective reality--not that it gives us a negative picture of objective reality. Drawing on Frankfurt's piece on bullshit here, as that is what Trump does a lot (though--and this is important--he *also* lies a lot. He's a double enemy of truth). As always, I chose my words carefully--"no reason at all to believe." Not "a firm reason to disbelieve."

https://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

Anyway, I do think I'm done wasting time with you after this thread unless you have some redemption move.

 

[brothir]

Good point. The statement is already absolute without the pleonasm. Great word btw, hadn't heard that before.

Would you agree that due to Trump having told the truth before Jack's statement disproves Jack's assertion due to precedence? Or do you think that Trump adding that he'd be willing to testify under oath makes it so we can't outright dismiss things he says as definitely false?

It all depends on what level of skepsis you want to apply. You can choose to be so skeptical you dismiss the existence of anything you haven't seen yourself, or you can choose to be so unskeptical you accept everything anyone ever says to you. As long as you're honest and consistent with how you decide what you consider true, then you can at least offer the "agree to disagree" card in good faith to someone you disagree with.

So, your questions necessitates that I essentially weigh up and even out the skepticism levels of the both of you, and arrive at some best approximation of what would be considered true based on that. Honestly, I can't do that. There's too much information for me to decode.

What I can say is that from the few transcripts I've read of what Trump says, is that he rambles so much I honestly have no idea how anyone would keep a running track of what he has said, especially he himself. So merely based on how much he says, the off-the-cuff nature of it, and in how downright incoherent it can be, trying to decide the truth of it all based on what he says is very difficult, even if you assume he's mostly honest.

Basically, even if Comey got it wrong by some technical measure, it's not hard to see why he would get the wrong message.

To bring it back to the beginning, let's look at your post that started this:

Trump just said in an interview he didn't ask that of Comey, so who knows if it even happened.

"Who knows" is of particular interest here. At it's most basic level, it means "I don't know", which should be pretty harmless here considering you weren't there and pretty literally only have hearsay to go by. However, "who knows" can also be used as a trojan horse of sorts, as in "Lee Harvey Oswald could've been bought off by the Jewish cabal to destabilize the US through the assassination and thereby enable white genocide. I mean, who knows?!". Then you have a spectrum in between.

Shills and hacks will abuse this sort of thing relentlessly to craft a narrative that benefits them, constantly changing the level of skepticism applied to dismiss or accept whatever is convenient and lying about doing so.

Were you trying to do that here? Not as far as I can see. JVS may have reasons to believe otherwise. That's pretty much all I can say.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Who knows" is of particular interest here. At it's most basic level, it means "I don't know", which should be pretty harmless here considering you weren't there and pretty literally only have hearsay to go by. However, "who knows" can also be used as a trojan horse of sorts, as in "Lee Harvey Oswald could've been bought off by the Jewish cabal to destabilize the US through the assassination and thereby enable white genocide. I mean, who knows?!". Then you have a spectrum in between.

Shills and hacks will abuse this sort of thing relentlessly to craft a narrative that benefits them, constantly changing the level of skepticism applied to dismiss or accept whatever is convenient and lying about doing so.

Were you trying to do that here? Not as far as I can see. JVS may have reasons to believe otherwise. That's pretty much all I can say.

To "who knows?" in this case, I'd say, "reasonable people following the developments know with a reasonable degree of certainty." I mean, we can get deeply into it. Even if there were a video, it could be faked. If you were there, your memory could be faulty. Like you say, people can play games with that kind of thing to push untruths or deny truths. But Trump denying a highly credible claim (moreso than normal considering the documentation and the credibility of the speaker) that is damaging to him does not move the needle (at all).

Anyway, this is precisely the kind of discussion I try not to have. I'm happy to defend claims that I actually make, but explaining that I didn't make claims false attributed to me is a waste. I don't if @Giblert is a troll or genuinely stupid, but the difference doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned.

 

[brothir]

(at all)

I was lost in though trying to formulate a reply, but then I noticed this and now I sit here chuckling helplessly. Well played, sir.

 

[Deleted member 491001]

Right. It's just for emphasis.



How could it?

My claim is that Trump saying something doesn't give us any information about objective reality--not that it gives us a negative picture of objective reality. Drawing on Frankfurt's piece on bullshit here, as that is what Trump does a lot (though--and this is important--he *also* lies a lot. He's a double enemy of truth). As always, I chose my words carefully--"no reason at all to believe." Not "a firm reason to disbelieve."

https://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf



Anyway, I do think I'm done wasting time with you after this thread unless you have some redemption move.

I'm sorry to hear this conversation has been a waste of your time; I'm thinking you're misinterpreting my posts as having been typed loudly and angrily, when I'm more typing as a person with a rich history of listening to Neal Conan and Terry Gross and even Diane Rehm even when other NPR friends of mine didn't have the patience to deal with her spasmodic dysmorphia. Also my favorite aunt is a lifelong public school librarian in Maine ha!

Point is, I think we're on here to discuss issues that either matter or that we think might matter in the future, and I don't think we should ever let anger get the best of us in these discussions and call them a waste of time. People asking questions might even be playing devil's advocate in which case you could be building a stronger ally on a certain topic. And I do have a response if you're interested in continuing the convo.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm sorry to hear this conversation has been a waste of your time; I'm thinking you're misinterpreting my posts as having been typed loudly and angrily, when I'm more typing as a person with a rich history of listening to Neal Conan and Terry Gross and even Diane Rehm even when other NPR friends of mine didn't have the patience to deal with her spasmodic dysmorphia. Also my favorite aunt is a lifelong public school librarian in Maine ha!

I'm not angry with you or reading you as being angry with me. I'm thinking you're trying to be annoying because you find it to be fun, but I find it to be boring (though it is compelling responses).

Point is, I think we're on here to discuss issues that either matter or that we think might matter in the future, and I don't think we should ever let anger get the best of us in these discussions and call them a waste of time. People asking questions might even be playing devil's advocate in which case you could be building a stronger ally on a certain topic. And I do have a response if you're interested in continuing the convo.

Again, waste of time is not something said in anger. It's said in the spirit of thinking that it is a waste of time--that it's not fun, not enlightening, etc. As for the second point, it depends on the nature of the questions, doesn't it? In this case, I asserted that a condition has no impact on a reasonable assessment of the truth, and you claimed that I was asserting that that condition is definitive (in a negative sense) in that assessment. As I said, I'm happy to defend points that I actually make. Not so keen on defending points that I don't make.

And, by all means, let us see your response.