[Winstonm]

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.

A different tact. Would you explain a couple of things?

I am sure you have heard the saying that "anything is possible". Do you believe that to be true?

In an upthread, you mentioned that you believed that George Soros caused the collapse of some country's economy for his own profit. Can you explain why you believe(d) that true?

[PassedOut]

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

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.

Not "the left." Trump bragged about it on tape, and a dozen women confirmed that he told the truth about it. Has nothing to do with right vs. left.

[diana_eva]

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

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.

Trump on the Howard Stern show:
http://edition.cnn.c...tern/index.html

Video of Trump bragging about kissing women and grabbing them:
https://www.washingt...eed4_story.html

Apology of Trump for video where he brags about inappropriately touching women:
https://www.facebook...57844642270725/

Is this enough evidence that Trump admits to it? Of course some of the dozens of cases of women who came out to say that Trump really did come into beauty pageants room while they were naked or kissed them without consent or touched them inappropriately might be just lying or looking for 10 minutes of fame.

But in the light of Trump's own words which is more likely? He just likes to say that he touches women, but he never does and all those crazy women lie, or he really does what he brags he is doing and getting away with it because he's a star?

[Kaitlyn S]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-07, 12:59, said:

A different tact. Would you explain a couple of things?

I am sure you have heard the saying that "anything is possible". Do you believe that to be true?

In an upthread, you mentioned that you believed that George Soros caused the collapse of some country's economy for his own profit. Can you explain why you believe(d) that true?

Sorry - slammed with work but I'll try to give a quick reply.

Clearly not anything is possible; for example it's not possible that a person's gender is not affected by which chromosomes he is created with. It's not possible for water to boil at temperatures near absolute zero. It's not possible that the earth is larger than the sun. It's not possible that Donald Trump has never been married.

The Malaysian prime minister stated that he thought that Soros ruined their economy. When I get a chance, I'll try to find the appropriate article. While it's possible that he saw something that was inevitable and profited from hastening the process, he did in fact have something to do with Malaysian economic troubles, and to know exactly how much would require me to do a fair amount of research.

Diana: I'll look at your articles when I get a chance. Not likely before tomorrow.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-07, 14:45, said:

Sorry - slammed with work but I'll try to give a quick reply.

Clearly not anything is possible; for example it's not possible that a person's gender is not affected by which chromosomes he is created with. It's not possible for water to boil at temperatures near absolute zero. It's not possible that the earth is larger than the sun. It's not possible that Donald Trump has never been married.

The Malaysian prime minister stated that he thought that Soros ruined their economy. When I get a chance, I'll try to find the appropriate article. While it's possible that he saw something that was inevitable and profited from hastening the process, he did in fact have something to do with Malaysian economic troubles, and to know exactly how much would require me to do a fair amount of research.

No, that's fine. Thx.

We are in agreement that some things must be either impossible or so unlikely as to be statistically impossible. After that, all else must be a question of degree.

Second, have you read or do you know anyone in finance who handles large amounts of dollars or transactions? The issue with the Soros question is not who believes what but whether or not it is even possible for a single trader to affect an economy of a country. I am not in that industry. My reading and study in trying to learn the industry has indicated to me that such a claim is preposterous and should be marked as "ridiculous". Once that is done, the only thing left is to determine why anyone would suggest such as story.

The questions we have to ask ourselves going forward, it seems to me, is first, is this even possible, and second, if possible how likely is it to have occurred?

Concerning the Pizzagate article that Kenberg linked, the combination of these two questions should make anyone with more than a single brain cell rule out this hoax without hesitation. The only people who could be duped with this story are those with some kind of anti-government, anti-Clinton, anti-liberal, or religious ax to grind and are looking for confirmation of their bias. And what has happened? If you read the entire article, the ones duped were as suggested.

When one side is continually duped by implausibilities and impossibilities, is should be a warning to look closer at their claims, don't you think?

[jonottawa]

President Trump named Time Person of the Year

Better late than never.



And Kaitlyn, if you let them frame the argument, you've already lost. But I admire your valiant efforts nevertheless.

Whether or not George Soros destabilized some economy somewhere is a red herring. Who cares? He is very wealthy. He spends a crap-ton of money in an effort to influence politics. It makes sense to care about his political beliefs, to be curious about what he spends his political donations on and whether or not a billionaire should be able to exert that much influence in politics without actually running for something. I don't care about the rest.

As for pizzagate, another distraction. I care about the 49 gays who were killed in Orlando. I care about the 87 people who were killed in Nice. I care about the hundreds of people who were sexually assaulted in Cologne. I care about the 32 people who were killed (and hundreds injured) in Brussels. I care about the Islamic terrorist attack at Ohio State. All of this stuff gets flushed down the memory hole and we obsess about 1 deranged dude who didn't actually hurt anybody. Because the MSM frames the argument & chooses what's 'important' and what's not. They frame the narrative to brainwash their viewers. And it works.

As for whether Trump is a womanizer, yes he was. So what? So was JFK. So was LBJ. Do I think he kissed women on the lips? Yes. I've never in my life said to a woman 'Can I kiss you on the lips?' You lean in and either you kiss her on the lips or she turns her head. I guess that makes me Paul Bernardo. Do I think he walked up to strangers and grabbed their hoohas? Of course not, get serious. Compared to Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner, he's a saint. So we kept 2 perverts out of the White House & we let a former womanizer in. I'm okay with that. This is just another pointless distraction.

Anyway, stop letting them frame the argument. If you're always on defense, you'll never put any points on the board.

[hrothgar]

jonottawa, on 2016-December-07, 15:25, said:

Better late than never.

I would have thought that 1938 was good enough

[kenberg]

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.

I feel like a country preacher trying to convert a sinner.
There is a tautological sense to "If it isn't impossible then it must be possible". But sirely you do not lead your everyday life that way.

An example:

50+ years ago I was a young graduate student. I had a wife, a child and we were living on a graduate assistant's salary, which is to say very little. The local grocery store had a deal: You shop, the give you a card with a letter on it, when you had all the letters to something, probably the name of the store (Red Owl) you got a big prize. Wonderful. I quickly got Re Owl. But no D. Ok, I would check with friends. I had many Ls. Maybe I could trade an L for a D. Surprise!! Everyone else was also waiting for a D!. All these years later I still look back in amusement at my naivety. Sure, it could have been just luck that nobody had yet gotten a D. And I imagine that there were some Ds out there. Just not many.

Surely you look at many things day to day and say "Possible, but not really". Hillary is running a child sex ring? Really? Where is my D? No doubt I will get it in just a couple more trips to the store. Sure.

My naivety was pretty much harmless. This sex ring stuff is not. I am asking that before people send off tweets or post stuff on Facebook they use a little judgment. Absolute proof, no. But judgment is a reasonable request.

If nothing else, consider the source. This guy who drove up from N.C. has alcohol problems drug problems, can't keep a job, etc. This is no surprise. What he can do is drive up to D.C with an assault rifle and start shooting. Sure, he is just concerned about the children in Hillary's sex ring. Sure.

[mikeh]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-07, 14:45, said:

The Malaysian prime minister stated that he thought that Soros ruined their economy. When I get a chance, I'll try to find the appropriate article. While it's possible that he saw something that was inevitable and profited from hastening the process, he did in fact have something to do with Malaysian economic troubles, and to know exactly how much would require me to do a fair amount of research.

Did it ever occur to you, with the British pound and the Malaysian economy, that politicians rarely announce to the world: 'sorry, we made a mess of things...blame us'

I don't know anything about the Malaysian situation but I know something about, and have posted about, the UK situation. Soros saw a disaster in the making. The UK was wasting billions of its dwindling foreign reserves trying to keep the Pound within the prescribed exchange rate with the Mark. It was hanging on by the skin of its teeth, and the economic situation was such that an informed outsider, such as Soros, could anticipate that the UK was going to be unable to stay in the ERM for much longer. If and when it exited, the pound woukd sink against the Mark (and I assume against most other currencies). So shorting the pound was a good bet.

As it happened, shorting the pound added to the pressure on the UK to exit. It was forcd to dramatically increase interest rates and accelerate its wastage of foreign currency reserves.

Logic suggests that if Soros' position was flawed...if the ERM was sustainable...his efforts to short the pound would have been of limited success. But he simply exposed and emphasized what was already underway. It seems pretty clear that the UK was going to leave the ERM within a few months, or a year at the outside. He triggered an earlier exit and, in so doing, made his legendary billion.

It is possible to argue that he was in fact 'the cause' of the exit from the ERM as of the day it happened, but it is silly to argue that the UK would have remained in the ERM absent his intervention, and in the meantime would have thrown ever increasing amounts of good money after bad.

The politicians of course, or at least those in power, were adamant that Soros was 'the villain', because to admit otherwise woul dhave been to admit that they had made a stupid decision to commit to the ERM, a stupid decision to agree to the ERM with no avenue to renegotiate or to exit gracefully, and had ruled over a failing economy that couldn't keep up with Germany.

I sort of suspect that the Malaysian government wasn't the best economic administration of all time. Scapegoating, especially scapegoating foreigners, is a hallowed tradition amongst all incompetent rulers.

Did Soros wreck the Malaysian economy? Maybe. I have no opinion based on fact. But I sure wouldn't take a quote from a Malaysian politician as evidence.

[nige1]

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?

I don't read all posts but I attack some ad hominem "arguments".

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

Let's look at the meme that really showed her true attitude towards blacks....

We aren't mind-readers. Why must we speculate about Kaitlyn's attitudes? Why can't we just discuss facts and arguments relevant to the topic?

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2016-December-07, 16:31, said:

I don't read all posts but I attack some ad hominem "arguments".


We aren't mind-readers. Why must we speculate about Kaitlyn's attitudes? Why can't we just discuss facts and arguments relevant the topic?

wtf?

You haven't bothered to read what Kaitlyn wrote? The posts that caused me and others here to tell her that she was expressing racist views?

Yet, without taking that somewhat basic step, you feel able to sit at your computer and write attack after attack on me....on my character?

You accuse me of ad hominem attacks? I'm not sure that you know what that actually means, altho I am sure you can quote a dictionary definition.

You know, I gained a useful insight into your character in your response to my pointing out that an argument you had made, based on the notion that the genius, Newton, believed in what we all now know to be silly...alchemy. I pointed out that in the context of his times, a belief in alchemy as a topic worth pursuing was eminently reasonable and that it is an error to judge historical figures in the light of current knowledge.

Your response was that you would prefer I not expose your ignorance and that it was patronizing of me to do so...notwithstanding that you were the one advancing the fallacious argument in an effort to make me look unfair.

You have now further clarified your character. You are happy to write long paragraphs attacking me for comments I made in response to specific posts, yet you can't be bothered to see whether my comments were reasonable? You simply assume that they couldn't be.

You suggested that I use personal attacks on witnesses in trials. You presumably don't have any knowledge of what I do for a living. No lawyer should engage in personal attacks on a witness in a courtroom. Such would usually be counterproductive and would always be, imo, unprofessional.

Trust me: it is rarely difficult to make an idiot look like an idiot, without calling the person an idiot to their face. You merely point out what they have admitted to doing or thinking or writing, and the conclusion follows as the day follows the night.

[diana_eva]

This is an interesting exercise for you Kaitlyn. Let's say you read my post:

diana_eva, on 2016-December-07, 14:24, said:

Trump on the Howard Stern show:
http://edition.cnn.c...tern/index.html

Video of Trump bragging about kissing women and grabbing them:
https://www.washingt...eed4_story.html

Apology of Trump for video where he brags about inappropriately touching women:
https://www.facebook...57844642270725/

Is this enough evidence that Trump admits to it? Of course some of the dozens of cases of women who came out to say that Trump really did come into beauty pageants room while they were naked or kissed them without consent or touched them inappropriately might be just lying or looking for 10 minutes of fame.

But in the light of Trump's own words which is more likely? He just likes to say that he touches women, but he never does and all those crazy women lie, or he really does what he brags he is doing and getting away with it because he's a star?

Let's say you google for yourself and try to find some additional information, for example wikipedia shows a list of women who accused Trump and what they say he did, with no political commentary:
https://en.wikipedia...uct_allegations

Let's say you also read Jon's post:

jonottawa, on 2016-December-07, 15:25, said:

---

And Kaitlyn, if you let them frame the argument, you've already lost. But I admire your valiant efforts nevertheless.
...

As for whether Trump is a womanizer, yes he was. So what? So was JFK. So was LBJ. Do I think he kissed women on the lips? Yes. I've never in my life said to a woman 'Can I kiss you on the lips?' You lean in and either you kiss her on the lips or she turns her head. I guess that makes me Paul Bernardo. Do I think he walked up to strangers and grabbed their hoohas? Of course not, get serious. Compared to Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner, he's a saint. So we kept 2 perverts out of the White House & we let a former womanizer in. I'm okay with that. This is just another pointless distraction.

Anyway, stop letting them frame the argument. If you're always on defense, you'll never put any points on the board.

Draw your own conclusions. You don't have to post them here, I personally don't care to go after your choice of words or debunk your arguments at any cost. I am not a liberal, not a democrat, I'm just a woman from an ex-communist country who has seen a lot of propaganda.

I'd really like you to think for yourself, instead of relying on what other people say. You have facts (hope you agree radio show recordings + videos + apology straight on Trump's official page count as facts), you have opinion (Jon's interpretation of these facts) and you have your own brain.

[cherdano]

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

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.

LOL. Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. Some women came forward and described in detail how he sexually assaulted them.
It's a "she said-he said". As in, she said so, and he said so also.

[cherdano]

Doublepost.

[diana_eva]

cherdano, on 2016-December-07, 17:43, said:

LOL. Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. Some women came forward and described in detail how he sexually assaulted them.
It's a "she said-he said". As in, she said so, and he said so also.

Apparently this is just a matter of opinion, we can't be sure (says Kaitlyn), and after all how can we believe he would go touch a woman without consent, be serious (says Jon)!

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 17:31, said:

You accuse me of ad hominem attacks? I'm not sure that you know what that actually means, altho I am sure you can quote a dictionary definition.

...

Trust me: it is rarely difficult to make an idiot look like an idiot, without calling the person an idiot to their face. You merely point out what they have admitted to doing or thinking or writing, and the conclusion follows as the day follows the night.

Complaining about ad hominem attacks has become a time honored tradition for idiots who dislike being called idiots...

In the case of Nigel, he seems to have been emotionally crushed when his hobby horse got summarily dismissed and he is reacting by lashing out...

[jonottawa]

Trump's apology:
"I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me, know these words don’t reflect who I am.

I said it, it was wrong, and I apologize.

I’ve travelled the country talking about change for America. But my travels have also changed me. I’ve spent time with grieving mothers who’ve lost their children, laid off workers whose jobs have gone to other countries, and people from all walks of life who just want a better future. I have gotten to know the great people of our country, and I’ve been humbled by the faith they’ve placed in me. I pledge to be a better man tomorrow, and will never, ever let you down.
Let’s be honest. We’re living in the real world. This is nothing more than a distraction from the important issues we are facing today. We are losing our jobs, we are less safe than we were 8 years ago and Washington is broken.
Hillary Clinton, and her kind, have run our country into the ground.

I’ve said some foolish things, but there is a big difference between words and actions. Bill Clinton has actually abused women and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days.

See you at the debate on Sunday." All emphasis mine.

It's funny how people reference an apology and yet the apology doesn't say what they claim it says. He's apologizing for the words he said.

I like unsubstantiated allegations that don't suddenly materialize 3 weeks before an election. If a rich guy sexually assaults you, why WOULDN'T you sue him? Worst case he settles for $850,000 like Bill Clinton did.

Anyway, speaking of unwanted touching, we can't forget the all-time champ, Creepy Joe Biden:

[cherdano]

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 think you still have some learning to do on nige1 logic. In nige1 logic, Kaitlyn must be a good person because the "usual gang" is against her. No further analysis, or even reading, required.

[mikeh]

diana_eva, on 2016-December-07, 17:47, said:

Apparently this is just a matter of opinion, we can't be sure (says Kaitlyn), and after all how can we believe he would go touch a woman without consent, be serious (says Jon)!

Strangely this 'we can't be sure' idea didn't appear in her postings until we started helping her with fact checking. Prior to that, she seemed perfectly happy to repeat, as factual, bigoted ideas with some assurance. Funny, that.

She is invoking that incredibly dangerous, and very successful, notion that there are always two sides to everything, and that by definition each side is entitled to be taken seriously. Thus climate deniers v climate experts. A used car salesmen or a rich egomaniacal man who inherited 140MM from his father is entitled to as much respect as several hundred scientists with multiple degrees, thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and in total thousands of people-years experience on the topic...after all...we can't be sure that Trump doesn't know more about climate science than the scientists. At the very least, the fact that Trump says it is all a hoax is surely evidence that it may be a hoax? How can we be sure?

It would make me laugh all day long if this sort of argument weren't the staple for right wing politicians, and weren't a winning formula.

[nige1]

cherdano, on 2016-December-07, 18:10, said:

I think you still have some learning to do on nige1 logic. In nige1 logic, Kaitlyn must be a good person because the "usual gang" is against her. No further analysis, or even reading, required.

A straw man Suppose I guess that a BBO poster is "good" or "bad" according to some Cherdano criterion What relevance has that to the thread topic? Or to the price of fish?