Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Crimson847 » Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:29 am

Windy wrote:Appeals to authority are always fallacious. Logical fallacies don't require context, they attack the inherent structure of the argument. Except for the slippery slope meme, fuck that meme.


Many informal fallacies (the category both appeal to authority fallacies and slippery slope fallacies fall into) require context. An appeal to popularity, for instance ("X is best because it's the most popular"), is not fallacious if you're discussing something where public opinion is relevant. The best scientific theory is not necessarily the one believed by the most people, but the best marketing strategy is the one that appeals to the most people. Context thus affects whether an appeal to popularity is fallacious or not.

This isn't even really an appeal to authority, you're taking their words, adding your own interpretations to it, and asserting that your own interpretations have authority.


Can you be more specific? I admit that my earlier assertions about the Trump team's motives for changing the story were interpretation, but I'm not sure what interpretation is involved in repeating someone's argument practically verbatim and then saying "this is that person's argument".



Are you suggesting that I'm leaving out important context or something? I honestly don't understand what your point is. I just want to be wrong. Why won't you make me wrong? :cry:

Well, if I was you and several lawyers contradicted what Trump said I would go study the law and figure it out for myself, or refuse to take a position.


Becoming an expert in any field (including an area of law) takes years, if not decades of study and practice. I could look up the law myself, and do so in cases where an expert legal opinion isn't available or I have specific, articulable reasons to regard that expert as unreliable. However, that sort of personal research is limited because knowing the text of the law isn't enough to know how an actual trial would play out. The law doesn't take corporeal form and smite lawbreakers, as metal as that would be; it's carried out by people, and people have their own agendas, bullshit theories, biases, and blind spots. Knowing what the law says isn't enough to make the best predictions; for one you'd have to know case law and precedent, which involves poring over a potentially vast number of past court cases so you can determine how judges or juries have ruled on the matter in practice. Or you could ask a lawyer (or better yet several lawyers), which in my experience doesn't always work but generally works better than trying to answer legal questions yourself.

As for refusing to take a position, that's certainly the rational response in many if not most cases. The weaker the evidence is and the greater the consequences for a wrong judgment, the more appealing fence-sitting is. However, not taking a position on an issue by extension means not acting on it, and deciding not to act on an issue is a choice with its own consequences to be accounted for, so simply deciding to never take a position unless you're literally 100% sure (which you should virtually never be about anything) isn't reasonable either.



All of these vague claims and "unanswered questions" mean absolutely nothing. I've seen more evidence that Obama is secretly funding terrorist groups and they're still not convincing enough.


Yep, the existence of unanswered questions means little or nothing about Trump.

Shit I mixed up "valid" with "sound".


Well then, I don't agree that their arguments are generally valid. They're based on certain premises about human nature and "how people work" that make perfect sense to certain types of people on the margins of society, like a miserable couple looking for something to blame for the failure of their ambitions, an anxious and agoraphobic farmer with tinfoil lining his bedroom, or an isolated and bullied teenage boy with no friends. Premises that contained useful if situational insights, but which I no longer regard as entirely accurate.

Now you know how I feel every time I'm right about everything and then everyone else moves their goalposts.


People can be unfair, it's true.
  • 2

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Windy » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:00 am

Crimson847 wrote:Many informal fallacies (the category both appeal to authority fallacies and slippery slope fallacies fall into) require context. An appeal to popularity, for instance ("X is best because it's the most popular"), is not fallacious if you're discussing something where public opinion is relevant.


It's not relevant when you're trying to determine the binary truth of a statement.

And it's not necessarily bad for general life advice since they tend to be correct more often than not, but these days you often have the luxury of either not taking a position or verifying it yourself.

The best scientific theory is not necessarily the one believed by the most people, but the best marketing strategy is the one that appeals to the most people. Context thus affects whether an appeal to popularity is fallacious or not.


You don't always need to appeal to the most people to achieve your objectives.

Can you be more specific? I admit that my earlier assertions about the Trump team's motives for changing the story were interpretation, but I'm not sure what interpretation is involved in repeating someone's argument practically verbatim and then saying "this is that person's argument".

Are you suggesting that I'm leaving out important context or something? I honestly don't understand what your point is. I just want to be wrong. Why won't you make me wrong? :cry:


I don't know, I have no idea what your point is, I thought this thread was about Trump committing a crime but you're telling me he might not have committed a crime and you would still be right, so I have absolutely no idea what I'm arguing against anymore.

As for refusing to take a position, that's certainly the rational response in many if not most cases. The weaker the evidence is and the greater the consequences for a wrong judgment, the more appealing fence-sitting is. However, not taking a position on an issue by extension means not acting on it, and deciding not to act on an issue is a choice with its own consequences to be accounted for, so simply deciding to never take a position unless you're literally 100% sure (which you should virtually never be about anything) isn't reasonable either.


Yes, this is true. What's also true is that no one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take a position in politics. Whatever you believe about politics has little effect on the big picture and likely little effect on your own life unless you do something stupid like letting your political beliefs mix with your professional life. Or if you're involved in the stock market, which can move with Trump's shitposts, but I highly doubt that because you don't hate life enough.

Well then, I don't agree that their arguments are generally valid. They're based on certain premises about human nature and "how people work" that make perfect sense to certain types of people on the margins of society, like a miserable couple looking for something to blame for the failure of their ambitions, an anxious and agoraphobic farmer with tinfoil lining his bedroom, or an isolated and bullied teenage boy with no friends. Premises that contained useful if situational insights, but which I no longer regard as entirely accurate.


You realize most of the wild guessing in this thread are also based on assumptions about human nature. Insightful views like "all humans I don't like are literally cartoon villains".
  • 1

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3034
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Aquila89 » Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:47 pm

aviel wrote:I'm confused as to what fact or conclusion is actually in dispute here.


Apparently by this point so are the main participants in the dispute.
  • 6

As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
--Carl Jung
User avatar
Aquila89
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:45 pm
Location: Hungary
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Deathclaw_Puncher » Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:11 pm

  • 1

"Schmibby Dibby Kabibby"- Alex Hirsch

"When in doubt, meow it out!"- Bex Taylor-Klaus
User avatar
Deathclaw_Puncher
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:42 pm
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Show rep
Title: Queen of the Cerignola Olives

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Absentia » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:48 pm

It's doubtful that Patten has much to add to the Trump side of the investigation, at least not directly. He's accused of the same kind of illegal lobbying for the same Ukrainian-Russian interests as Manafort, but he has no close ties to Trump. At most, his cooperation puts extra pressure on Manafort.
  • 3

User avatar
Absentia
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:46 am
Location: Earth
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby blehblah » Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:14 pm

Folks, obstruction is complicated. Why not cut-through the deeply Deep State and go with constructively destructing the neither-obstruction nor collusion conclusions?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 21471.html

Donald Trump’s legal team will likely try to stop the release of special counsel Robert Mueller‘s probe into Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign, the president’s top lawyer has said.

Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York who now serves as legal adviser to the president, said the White House legal team will probably try to use executive privilege to block it being made public.


I am pretty sure that Nixon tried the "executive privilege" thingy with the tapes of conversations he had. The SCOTUS folks rule, 'Nopity, nope-nope, not on our watch'.

Pulling "executive privilege" on a report from special council? That would be pretty interesting.
  • 3

A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.
User avatar
blehblah
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3877
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:16 pm
Show rep
Title: Error General, Panic Colonel

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests