mentalgongfu2 » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:55 am wrote:Again, yes, everything we have heard in the west is ridiculous propaganda.
Yea, he is a legitimate statesman.
These aren't "beliefs", they are facts.
Nordic, if you are still reading, where do you source these facts? As presented by yourself, they are merely assertions. Seriously, I want to know what Oracle you are using to sort wheat from chaff here so I can check it out myself.
No question there is some hysterical anti-Russian propaganda out there, but where can one read the supposed truth on Putin?
Interesting how loudly Democrats laughed at Romney's claim in 2012 Russia was America's greatest foreign threat compared to now, but that doesn't change anything about Putin's history. Is an ex-KGB agent more trustworthy and noble than an ex-CIA agent? But I digress.
Yes, I think Nordic answers/exemplifies his own questions.
What has gone wrong?
1. Absolutistic terms
2. All-ness fallacies
3. Either-or fallacies
4. Ownership and command of "the facts".
5. Privy to the "Truth" and secret knowledge.
6. Narcissistic disdain, dehumanization, and condescension of ones peers (a.k.a. the herd, lemmings, sheeple)
7. Apocalyptic and high stakes thinking.
8. High disgust/low empathy orientation.
9. Urgency for action over communication.
10. "Awakened" vs. trance orientation framing.Nordic wrote:
The big question everyone should be asking, especially people as smart and talented as The Consul, and others here, is why would you believe other than the facts?
Looking back on these days, it is going to be very fascinating, and embarrassing as hell for most, to contemplate how, and why, the greatest mass hysteria to ever overcome the American people occurred. Because that is the biggest and most disturbing aspect of this entire story. Even 9/11 didn't hypnotize everyone and turn them into non-thinking lemmings quite to this extent. And hell, that was legitimately traumatizing, what with passenger planes crashing into buildings in broad daylights and thousands sacrificed in a diabolically brilliant mind-fuck.
What the excuse this time? There is none. It's SO FUCKING WEIRD.
Hopefully sooner than later people will snap out of it. But then most will not want to admit they were so easily manipulated. That is, if we haven't cheered our way into a nuke war with Russia and gotten ourselves turned to radioactive dust.And I'm sure it goes without saying that this is why I can't participate here. People who should never have fallen for this hysteria and propaganda have fallen for it.And it's weird.And disappointing.Bye.
One of my pet peeves, (dropped in the "words and phrases you hate" thread I believe) is: "The fact of the matter is.."
That is the politicians sleeping sickness. (Almost Obama's mantra during every press conference, "Folks, the fact of the matter is.." ad nauseum.)
So,
Folks.. the
fact of the matter is... "
fact" is a much abused concept and word.
USAGE OF THE WORD "FACT": A DialogueHas anyone seen a fact?
-You can't see facts.
I can see' a dog and that is a fact.
-If you mean you can see a dog is a fact, that may be correct, but
I cannot see that fact. If you mean the dog is a fact, that is in-correct.
There is a dog in front of me, and that is a fact.
-Fine, but I cannot see it.
You can't see the dog?
-I can't see the fact that there is a dog there.
Alright, look at the following: There is a dog right there.
-I see it.
Aha! You see a fact.
-Hm?
I put down "There is a dog right there," and that is a fact, and you
said you saw it.
-The statement is not a fact although what it says is a fact.
And you can't see what it says?
-No.
Look at it again. It says, "There is a dog right there."
-I see that in the sense that I see the statement and I see it in the sense that I understand what it says, but I do not see what it says
in the sense of visual perception. I cannot see, or touch, or do any-thing to what it says -or to a fact.
You can't do anything to a fact? You can hide them, reveal them, find them.. .
-H-m-m. Let's see. Seems to me you do that sort of thing with facts, not a fact. I have heard of juries finding facts, but never a fact. Sure, we speak of a finding of fact or a fact finding, but that's
a different idea. We could say, "one of the facts that was found,"but that does not mean the one fact was found; it is a fact among others which were found.
Well look here. Suppose I'm a law teacher. I say, consider the following facts: "Smith threw a rock at Jones, but Jones ducked and the
rock hit Brown." Then I say, "Under those facts, Smith is liable for battery to Brown." Then I say, "Now let's change a fact. Let's say that Smith hit Green instead of Brown." I just did something to a fact. I changed it.
-Seems to me you changed the facts, not a fact. But I don't see how you can change a fact. If something is a fact, it is unchangeable.
You can change what you say about it, but you cannot change it.
I think I have you!
-Oh?
You changed the referent on me. The statements I made concerning Smith, Jones, Brown, and Green were facts. You shifted to talking about things which are facts. There are statements which are facts and things which are facts.
-There are no things which are facts. It is not the thing which is a
fact. A tree, or a dog, or a riot is not a fact.
Wait a minute. I say, "The students are uneasy and about to burn
down the building. That's a fact we have to face."
-Well, now that is an interesting.. .
And another thing. You said I cannot change a fact, but you played
with the word "it." You said, "If something is a fact, it is unchangeable.
But "it" refers to "something" and not to "fact." I can change a fact but not something.
-Nice try, but perhaps "it" refers to both "something" and to "fact."
Of course you can change something. You can cut a dog's hair, cut down a tree, and so on. But if something is a fact, then you cannot change it.
Perhaps, but how about that fact you have to face, the student unrest.
-That's a little trickier. I am not facing the student unrest, but the fact of student unrest or that there is student unrest."Fact" is referring to a state of affairs, or better yet, it's being used
in a statement that is just a way of talking.
Well, one last try. Back to my statement about Smith, Jones, Brown, and Green. Is that a fact?
-You can say, "Here are the facts," or "Take these facts," or 'These
are the facts."
Well, can't you see them?
Maybe you cannot see a fact, but you can see those facts.
-I've never heard anyone talk that way. It just doesn't make sense
to talk that way.
But if I were to hand you the statement of facts, I could say, "Look at
these facts."
-In that sort of case, you could even say "I saw the facts," but not,"I see or saw a fact."
http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-cont ... robert.pdf
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer