Maybe you should learn to think for yourself instead of regurgitating bullshit from an industry which depends on the good will of the orange child rapist.
Pot calling the kettle??
When I have the time (rare) -- I like to engage.
I questioned your premise and said maybe there's something to the claims made. And there was some substance there. Yet like so many arguments, the logic didn't work and the conclusions were incorrect. They may sound good, but don't hold up. E.g. while Trump does many questionable things, the argument painted outside the lines.
In college a logic philosophy teacher had me learn to think critically and understand logic, with propositions... And then go and look at what I thought was going to be a hard assignment-- find 3 logical fallacies in one newspaper or magazine article. When I mentioned to him that I thought it would be hard, he said it would be easy. And he was correct- after finding 3 logical fallacies in the first article i picked to read, I went on to pick several others -- and pretty much all of them had 3 or more logical fallacies.
I don't remember all the ways you can have logically invalid arguments -- but your argument struck me as interesting, interesting enough to fact check -- because for better or worse many people (with or without an agenda) make logically invalid claims all
Your response to my post is called an ad-hominen attack (e.g. you're attacking my ability to think rather than the argument which shows that your logic or castigation of Trump was flawed). Many people call names rather than engage in argument and it's a good part of what I think is wrong with our society (thus the lengthy response. Name calling rather than engaging in thoughtful discussion? Appealing to emotion and getting people on the bandwagon is a common (and often successful even if logically invalid ) way of moving people towards an end-goal, which may or may not be a valid argument. (e.g. 4 out of 5 <experts> recommend X and therefore you should use X being the common advertisement of the same goal -- the invalidity is shown by considering 100 lemmings jumping off the bridge, does that mean you should jump off the bridge just because they did?).
I'd prefer most arguments to be made with correct facts and to be logically valid (e.g. where the antecedents (if true) lead to a necessarily valid conclusion -- and not things like everyone else is saying X, Y, or Z so it must be true... or any similarly logically invalid argument even if those are used by politicians, debaters, influencers, charismatic people, slashdotters, and others.
I wondered when I saw your argument and decided to go and find out using something (AI) that's much quicker at pulling together information than I am. And since you didn't respond with an actual thoughtful argument, I assume my original instinct (and the AI fact check) is correct that your argument/conclusion is flawed and incorrect -- even if you may be (otherwise) justified in your dislike of Trump, AI, or all sorts of other opinions/beliefs you hold.
If you don't like using AI, then don't use it. I find it to be a useful tool.
You can use wikipedia to read about fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I engage with people hoping to raise the conversation (both the people reading it as well as the original author when they are open enough and I have the time to make a comment). I come to Slashdot because I love the insights that different people share and bring about all sorts of topics. It's more helpful when the arguments are valid, evidence is supplied (or other helpful auxiliary information - like other weather charts, facts people might not have known that are similar to the original point made).
And so hopefully (while I assume you didn't like what I said and chose to attack me), you can see that I do think -- even though you obviously disagree with how I think or what I consider to be the proper way of arguing and you prefer a more simple means of posting and expressing yourself, your thoughts, beliefs and opinions.
However, I really believe that one of the worst things that is happening in society right now is the divisiveness between those who "hate" the other side (whatever that other side, group, set of people, ideas, etc. is). Thus I'd prefer that more (old-school?) liberal idea of open dialog and exchange of thoughtful (and my preference logically valid ) arguments.
Anyway, hope you have a good day and that maybe some of my response above is insightful or worth consideration.
And hahaha -- no AI was used to generate any portion of this response
While in essence while there is substance and truth in your predicates, your propositions and conclusions are not sound.
So did you miss the part where after Deutsche bank dropped Trump, his kids told us they were doing all their banking with Russia? Trump was broke, all of his properties were fully leveraged, then Putin rode in on a white horse (and no shirt) and saved his bacon.
Prompt to Chat GPT
"Analyze [the above quoted] statement and fact check it for me with sources please"
My wording/comment about Chat GPT's Response
The below are direct quotes from the response. The full response did provide links to various sources (Washington Post, Politifact, etc.) but (as is typical of AI) was rather lengthy. I've extracted (verbatim ) the more succinct and to the point findings. There were other more in depth analysis that I've skipped showing that the timing of the Deutsche bank cutting Trump is inconsistent with the many other supporting statements of Russian business of the Trump family *before* Deutsche bank dropped Trump in the wake of the 2021 Capitol attack.
====== Excerpts directly from Chat GPT's Response ======
Final Verdict
The statement is partly grounded in fact but misleading in its central conclusion.
Mostly true
“After Deutsche Bank dropped Trump”
Deutsche Bank did decide to end its business relationship with Trump following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. However, this wording can imply that the bank's departure left Trump without financial support altogether. It does not establish that.
Misleading
“His kids told us they were doing all their banking with Russia”
The best-known supporting quotation is from Donald Trump Jr. in 2008. He said Russians made up a disproportionate share of the Trump Organization's assets and that money was coming in from Russia. He did not say the family did all its banking in Russia.
Unsubstantiated as stated
“Trump was broke, all of his properties were fully leveraged”
Trump had serious financial problems in the past and relied heavily on debt in his real estate business. But the statement provides no period, financial records, or property-by-property evidence showing that he was broke or that every property was fully leveraged.
Not established
“Putin
There is evidence of Russian business connections and Russian buyers of Trump properties. That is not proof that Putin personally, or the Russian government, rescued Trump's finances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
> He has argued that, despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility and accuracy due to a lack of respect for expertise. Since 2020, he has also accused Wikipedia of having a left-wing ideological bias in its articles.
[9] Sabur, Rozina (July 16, 2021). "The Left has taken over Wikipedia and stripped it of neutrality, says co-creator". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on January 12, 2022. Retrieved December 2, 2021. Mr Sanger added that "very little" reference to scandals and allegations against the Bidens, for instance relating to their business dealings in Ukraine, could be found on Wikipedia.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/wo...
[10] Sayers, Freddie (July 14, 2021). "Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created". UnHerd (Podcast). UnHerd. Archived from the original on May 27, 2022. Retrieved May 25, 2022.
"Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created"
My opinion: It does seem there's plenty of tribalism these days. More than enough to go around and make it questionable as to what is truly neutral anyway. Common context & shared beliefs/views/integrity and whats important are viewed very differently by a lot of groups -- including here on slashdot too.
Not really, cheating on exams can tarnish academic integrity and is a menace to society at large. Do you want to have heart surgery performed by someone who didn't know their shit, and cheated on their exams? Do you want to drive over a bridge design by a guy who doesn't understand structural analysis, or be represented by someone who faked their way through law school?
Besides which academic reputation is worth a lot to university and colleges, and they know it. If they didn't stomp on this now their reputation will turn to shit, and no one will want to enroll there. That can have a big impact on enrollment numbers and by extension their bottom line.
Let me first state that I *strongly* agree with the points above when applied with *broad strokes*. Cheating across the board is a danger.
Yet in the constant effort to show that most things aren't black and white, but often have shades in between... lets be more targeted and nuanced.
I can't be the only one who took "garbage" courses that I still think decades later the University was stupid to require...
TLDR: The academic process isn't quite an ala carte menu... You are often forced to take courses that you believe/know you will never use...
And in that case (returning to the topic above)-- the argument breaks down a bit in that who cares if it's a one-off here or there..
Examples:
1. (say Intro to Computer Science which was required, even though I'd been programming for years. And yes in hindsight I should have challenged and tested out of that course).
That one (and a couple other "Intro to engineering" courses) I despised and still don't respect to this day that the University told me I had to pay to take this in order to advance on a curriculum that they determined.
2. Introduction to Material Science (100 level course)
3. Heat Transfer (300 level course)
I enrolled in an engineering school, because it had a better reputation than the Arts & Sciences that Computer Programming was in at the time (20-30 years ago, no idea about what it looks like now). I knew as a programmer (and that being my love) that these other courses were not things I was going to use. But if I wanted the degree, then I had to take them.
And no I didn't cheat, but being forced to take courses like that at the time irritated me greatly and I've never forgotten. I understand why they were required for the fields I might go into-- I just knew I wasn't going into. I have never used those things I paid for with time & money...
Example 4> A friend of my dad's was I think an accountant -- he was continuing education and the school required him to take a computer programming course for whatever program he was in... he didn't get programming enough to be sure to pass the course and (being near the end of his career IIRC) was doing this more for his own learning -- but wanted (for personal reasons I guess) to complete the program but was frustrated by the program he was in requiring him to take this one CS course to get whatever "overall degree/certificate" he was doing, knowing he would never really use it.
Example 5>. Other examples likely exist -- e.g. people who are really sick with a longer/serious health issue, but know that if they take the final / fail this one required course with a professor who's an unforgiving/unhelpful/uncompromising jerk who's now or never you're going to mess your life up... (given the realities of student life, money & life events that you sometimes know in advance)....
Just another issue with how University's do things, and the problem with the Our Way or the Highway that is baked into the degree process.
It is what it is, and I think if you go the academic route you should pay the price and you are paying in some senses for their reputation and way of doing things.
Which every political groups is influenced by.
> Being a skeptic or untrusting of political malarky is probably a wise way to go these days regardless of which party/agenda/ideology is being pushed.
Perfect humans don't exist, but some groups are full of more shit than others.
Yes, and most of the policy and laws comes from the political branches of governments. While you and I may disagree on which groups are more full of crap, we do at least seem to agree that there are plenty of people who aren't truthful with full disclosure, and questioning things is a somewhat worthy endeavor. I tend to question both sides, but do find one side complains more loudly about the other...
Yes, brainworm intuition is better than those rigged bribed scientists from woke universities.
On a serious note, MAGAs often make a fatal logic flaw: that if subject matter experts are wrong "too often", that means their detractors are automatically right. But it's quite possible for BOTH to be wrong on many matters. Contrarians can make a living as "broken clock miners".
Or maybe if people consistently get things wrong there's an agenda... --> people who have a bridge to sell...
Or maybe the evidence is incomplete (COVID -- the vaccine will keep you from getting it...)
Or maybe the research is immature (COVID -- the vaccine will keep you from getting it...)
Or maybe (like marketing) they ran the numbers til they got the results they wanted (9 out of 10 dentists) -- [see how to lie with statistics]
Or maybe it's groupthink (e.g. academia not representing the populace) [https://www.efinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/EFI-PoliticalDonations_JGreene.pdf]
Or maybe it's something else...
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice...
There is a reason these proverbs and wisdom exist.
Being a skeptic or untrusting of political malarky is probably a wise way to go these days regardless of which party/agenda/ideology is being pushed.
Gee, I'm sure glad that Trump made the world safer by cutting WHO support.
Yeah, isn't it great how one country can so significantly affect the "World Health Organization" with its 168 member countries.
I agree with your first point about hygiene-- and TLDR: That's WORK and doesn't work so well in some cases... That's why people "need" 5GB of mail.
THE 1 %:
I think we agree on the 1% of emails/photos you need. There are emails I've lost to time (pre-Gmail) that I would love to have back.
( Every now and again I do go back to look some friend up or something that I haven't emailed in years -- people do have lifetime events that make it so you want to get together once every 10 years (think reunions, or special trips where you're going to visit that person who moved to a foreign country).
THE PROBLEM:
The problem, to keep that 1% of valuable emails means having to sort through all the garbage that you kept when you had loads of space and were younger and didn't have the hygiene and discipline. It's manageable (if you keep at it every day).
Having spent several hours (4+) going back and cleaning out a few years of mail-- I can say that once you're behind the power curve, you're not really going to catch up. (It's the same thing with photos and undoubtedly why your family has tons of it).
So while you may be disciplined -- and I salute you for it-- most people don't have that discipline or desire to use their time that way. And thus "free" storage seemed like a win/win -- keeping those important emails without the cost of good hygiene. My wife (who intentionally doesn't upgrade her phone often and often is running out of memory) does have good photo hygiene keeping only the best pictures, or off loading the larger files she wants to keep on to other storage...
I know there are apps out there that could probably help with this (for photos anyway -- although I don't know how well they work). Definitely could use something like this for Gmail...
Hmm World War II comes to mind (without much effort).
We didn't take over Germany or Japan -- we helped rebuild them & feed them somewhat too after the war.
But guess that doesn't fit your narrative of America as constant oppressor. So do you support WWII Germany and Japan and we should have not fought them?
I mean yeah, we decided to bomb Japan first -- oh, no it was the other way around.
And Korea? Vietnam? -- don't think the goal there was ever to take the land, but to try to spread democracy.
I'm not well enough versed in history or the Korean war to know if South Korea appreciated our involvement in the war. But I sure do know that I happen to like what South Korea does and lives (with whom we are aligned) a heck of a lot more than the North Korean dictatorship that constantly starves and kills its own people.
But sure, America bad... And by that logic, you bad too dude for such an unfair and exaggerated point of view that ignores the good that was and is done by the United States and paints defending itself (from Japan) and helping defeat Nazi germany as oppression, genocide, land & resource theft, etc.
I see your response was to call a reasoned argument childish. And also you help make my point (without realizing it-- oh the irony!)
There were plenty of mistakes and misstatements about COVID. I admit it was an unusual time and situation. And yes there are bound to be mistakes.
But that doesn't excuse or counter my point... It actually strengthens it.
Was the administration doing their best-- I believe they likely were. They (and more relevantly towards this thread), the MEDIA just weren't very nice with people who disagreed with them or had a different set of results from the science that was being done, or had different analysis. Going towards your original point -- truth and its discovery (or lack of bias) often tends to be messy.
Strange how this thing called truth often tends to be inconvenient towards political ideologies and cover stories and things that aren't always true. Sometimes information is successfully suppressed... And there are idiots on both sides. And yes your cousin may have been one of them.
As you said, navigating COVID was hard. It is however incredibly unwise to go down an unchartered road and then declare (as the government and media tended to do together) that yes we have and are the science, and anyone else with different ideas is wrong.
If it's hard and unchartered, you should be very careful about sharing what you know *as scientific certainty* -- which was the mistake made by the government, and the media (the theoretical 4th wall to check the government) went right along with it. So much of what the government said (and was amply repeated by the media) turned out to be wrong over and over again. Thus the media failed at its job -- you said '"reporting the truth (AKA doing their job) and controversy, "
When something has a high degree of uncertainty-- if you're honest in your science and math you dont' supress it, you admit the possibility of uncertainty (see all those polticial polls), and you also admit that there are other possible explanations of the facts (and why you believe yours to be correct, but admit that it's not conclusively proven). The Media didn't really fact check or allow other positions ** importantly that turned out that many of the alternate view points ** were correct.
And yes you can say I'm agreeing with the idiots (as opposed to the scientists and doctors who voiced concerns).
See: https://journalofindependentme...
Or (before Trump won the election): https://reason.com/2023/04/12/...
You make my case for me -- by showing that media & government should have been more cautious. Adults in the room listen to both sides and try to make as informed a decision as one can. And those of us who listen to both sides and do our best not to live in the echo-chamber (which is the unfortunate side of having a biased media is to get positions and counter positions you have to listen & read & importantly THINK about both sets of arguments) can then make a reasoned decision.
I suppose since you call my reasoned arguments childish because they don't agree with your worldview, I'm not talking to someone who actually knows how to reason and instead relies on name calling to try to win arguments. Best of luck to you with that.
When a Democrat is in office? The news is 24/7 about Clinton's blowjob...or Biden's senility...or Obama's struggles getting anything passed. When a Bush was in office, it was about the war not going as expected or the failing economy. They're equally merciless to either party.
Mainstream news outlets have only had 2 biases in my lifetime: reporting the truth (AKA doing their job) and controversy, which pays the bills. Yeah, negativity and fear and sex get you to pay attention. Otherwise, you'll do the 1 billion more interesting things you can do in your day than watch the nightly news.
Agree on the biases about courting controversy -- and what they are *supposed* to do.
However, I don't believe you're correct about media being unbiased... (i mean both mainstream and non mainstream media -- in my opinion, all media is biased these days).
Because in your world, the Hunter Biden story wasn't buried (pre-election) by the so called "mainstream" media and the media all investigated & reported frequently on President Biden's mental ability or challenges thereof (after the election before his debate with Trump), and there was no mis-reporting of COVID at all (or burying/mocking of people who didn't go along with the official position)...
I think you get the idea of there being a series of "too big to miss" biases and failures on the media's part in reporting showing that they have more than the 2 biases you mention.
To show the error in your statement another way -- when my brother years ago had to go to traffic school for a ticket, I was told that the police/instructors said that an average citizen makes sometype of mistake for which they can be pulled over ever 2 city blocks. Now, there's an opportunity to pull an average citizen over every couple of blocks -- but if the police officer pulls over those of a certain group he doesn't like 2x more than the group he does -- that doesn't mean there isn't bias even if he gives the group he likes a hard time and a ticket every now and again.
There's at least some recognition of the media's fall from grace: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t...
(current story, although I know I've seen it reported elsewhere).
People don't trust the media-- and it could be said to be because there have been too many times (left & right) that um "excuse me, your bias is showing".
Love your sig line -- somehow appropriate for this topic & thread.
The comment was good too.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
